Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

N D I A (DISTRIBUTION OF REVENUES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1944

THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Mr. BOULTON): reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth

I have received your Address praying that the Government of India (Distribution of Revenues) (Amendment) Order, 1944, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.

I will comply with your request.

Oral Answers to Questions — PORTUGAL (WOLFRAM EXPORTS)

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any agreement has yet been reached with the Portuguese Government over the supply of wolfram to Germany.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): Our conversations with the Portuguese Government have not yet been concluded and I regret that I am not therefore yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Strauss: Does there appear to be any prospect that these negotiations will be concluded before the war ends?

Mr. Eden: It has been made exceedingly plain to the Portuguese Government how much importance we in this country and our Allies attach to the question.

Mr. Cocks: Has the right hon. Gentleman thought of pointing out to the Portuguese Government that their action in this matter is inconsistent with the terms of our ancient alliance and that we expect them to conform to those terms as honourable people?

Mr. Eden: I think my previous answer shows that we have made our position pretty plain, and I do not think the Portuguese Government can have any doubt as to the importance that we attach to the matter. In view of their attitude over the larger question of the Azores, we feel entitled to ask them for full co-operation.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH FOREIGN POLICY, 1919–1939 (DOCUMENTS, PUNLICATION).

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) if he will issue a White Paper dealing with the consultations and negotiations that took place between this country and Germany during three years prior to the war and stating who took part;
(2) whether he has any statement to make regarding the publication of documents relating to British foreign policy in the years before the outbreak of the present war.

Mr. Eden: His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have decided to publish the most important documents in the Foreign Office archives relating to British foreign policy between 1919 and 1939. The documents will be published in a series of volumes which will be issued one by one as and when they are ready. The volumes will form a continuous chronological series, but in order to make available as soon as possible documents dealing with events most relevant to the outbreak of the present war, it is proposed, for purposes of publication, to divide the work into two parts; the first part to begin with the year 1919, and the second part to begin with the year 1930. The preparation of each part will be undertaken simultaneously.

Mr. Smith: That is very good as far as it goes but will the right hon. Gentleman have another look at my second Question? He will find that what I am getting at is whether he will consider issuing a White Paper in order that people may know who were engaged in the loan negotiations that took place.

Mr. Eden: That is a specific question. What I am dealing with here is giving the country full information. I do not know whether it would be wise or proper to draw up one particular White Paper.

Mr. Riley: Will the second volume, carrying it down to 1930, be published first or second?

Mr. Eden: There will be more than two volumes, I am afraid. The position is that the documents will be published simultaneously, beginning at 1919 and at 1930.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIA (ADMINISTRATION)

Major Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, following upon the Moscow Declaration concerning the independence of Austria, steps are being taken, in particular by this country in conjunction with the U.S.A., to prepare for the taking over by designated Austrian subjects of the Austrian governmental machine as soon as that country's liberation is effected.

Mr. Eden: His Majesty's Government are considering, in conjunction with the United States and Soviet Governments, the administrative problems which will arise on Austria's liberation from German rule.

Mr. Woodburn: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind the necessity for a Government in a country such as Austria to have some economic foundation, and the impossibility of having a political superstructure without an economic hinterland?

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ADVISORY COMMISSION

Sir Alfred Beit: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of times the European Advisory Commission has met since its inaugural meeting on 15th December, 1943.

Mr. Eden: There have been six formal meetings of the Commission since 15th December last, but, as I have previously stated, these meetings do not comprise the whole scope of the Commission's activities.

Sir A. Beit: Has the Commission yet made any recommendations and, if so, have they been accepted by any of the three Governments concerned?

Mr. Eden: The communiqué that was issued in Moscow made it quite plain that the problems that were being submitted to the Commission would not be made public.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the time has not now come for the establishment of a European Advisory Commission on a Ministerial level to prevent these instances of unhappy friction between the three great Powers?

Mr. Eden: I think the actual work being done by this Commission is being very well done, as far as I have been able to judge. As regards the wider question, I doubt whether any Commission, even if composed of archangels, would wholly succeed in the task the hon. Member would allot to it.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is it the case that the three great Powers are not co-operating with one another?

Mr. Eden: I submit that they are co-operating very well, with those occasional mishaps which occur between friend and friend at times.

Mr. Granville: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is within the scope of the European Advisory Council to discuss the terms of surrender or armistice conditions to apply to Axis countries arising out of the development of the war.

Mr. Granville: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is within the scope of the European Advisory Council to discuss the present position of Turkey.

Mr. Eden: As I informed the hon. Member on 21st March, the functions of the European Advisory Commission were defined in the communiqué issued at the close of the Moscow Conference. The proceedings of the Commission are secret and it would not be proper for me to discuss the subject matter of its deliberations.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL MONOPOLIES AND CARTELS

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make arrangements to have placed in the Library a verbatim Report of the proceedings of the Anti-Trust suit filed in New York on 16th March, 1944, against Imperial Chemical Industries, I.G. Germany and other companies.

Mr. Eden: I shall be glad to try to arrange to meet my hon. Friend's request.

Oral Answers to Questions — REFUGEES, TURKEY

Miss Rathbone: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Turkish Government is co-operating with the efforts which are being made to save refugees escaping from enemy countries; and whether, in view of the increasingly grave situation of these refugees, still further co-operation can be expedited.

Mr. Eden: I should like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the co-operative attitude of the Turkish Government over refugees who succeed in reaching Turkish territory from enemy countries. The scope of the work of rescue is unfortunately very limited on account of the small number of persons securing exit permits. His Majesty's Ambassador at Ankara is, however, in constant and active consultation with the Turkish Government and responsible refugee organisations, and I am confident that in the circumstances alluded to by the hon. Lady such measures of further co-operation as the Turkish authorities can take will be forthcoming as required.

Miss Rathbone: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, and expressing satisfaction with the assurance he has given, may I ask whether he realises that public opinion has had in the past a good deal of reason for uneasiness and dissatisfaction over the attitude of the Turkish Government, which seems much less helpful towards refugees in terrible danger than we might have expected from a friendly Government?

Earl Winterton: In addition to the representations made by the Government, a representative of the inter-governmental committee is in Ankara discussing matters with the Turkish Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (FOREIGN POLICY)

Mr. Martin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the recent summary of aims of United States foreign policy was, so far as those portions which include United Nations action are concerned, issued after consultation with His Majesty's Government; and, if so, whether they represent also the policy of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Eden: The statement in question was a summary of previous announce-

ments on foreign policy by the United States Administration, and therefore the question of consultation with His Majesty's Government obviously did not arise. The community of aims in the policies of the two Governments has been frequently established, e.g., at the Moscow Conference, with the conclusions of which the statement in question is wholly in accord.

Mr. Martin: Has the right hon. Gentleman observed that the Secretary of State has invited Congress to associate itself with the working out, the development and the practical application of these problems, and will he take similar action?

Mr. Eden: I am always glad of the help of Parliament and I get quite a bit of advice from outside.

Mr. Shinwell: Will not the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that, as far as Europe is concerned, we cannot allow our foreign policy to be dictated by the United States?

Mr. Eden: There is absolutely no question of that at all and I should not like any such suggestion to go out from the House. That is not the basis of our relationship with the United States. We work in co-operation with one another, neither subordinate to the other.

Mr. McGovern: Has not the time arrived for a clear statement to be made on war aims, so that the people of the country may know what they are really fighting for?

Mr. Shinwell: Has the right hon. Gentleman observed the references in the American Press, and reports in this country of what has transpired in the United States in the course of discussions about the American attitude to the French Committee of National Liberation?

Mr. Eden: I have observed in the American Press criticisms of their administration for paying too much attention to us and I sometimes see similar criticisms of His Majesty's Government for paying too much attention to them. I hope we shall not pay attention to either of these criticisms.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARGENTINA

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement on the position in the


Argentine and the policy of President Farrell respecting trade relations with the Axis and the presence of Axis agents in Argentina.

Mr. Eden: There has been no material change in the situation since my statement to the House on 8th March. On 10th March President Ramirez formally resigned his office, and it was assumed by General Farrell who, as I stated on 8th March, had previously declared that the foreign policy of General Ramirez would be maintained. This policy included suspension of economic and financial relations with the Axis. On 22nd March General Farrell stated in a Press interview that Argentine foreign policy was fully conscious of the moral duties born of Argentina's community of origin with other American nations. It remains to be seen how this sentiment and earlier assurances will be translated into deeds.

Mr. Cocks: Will the right hon. Gentleman say something about the last part of the Question? Is it not a serious situation that the influence of these Axis agents is spreading from the Argentine to neighbouring States?

Mr. Eden: I understand that warrants for the arrest of a number of persons charged with espionage for the Axis have been issued in the Argentine. With regard to the Embassies, they are to be removed as soon as facilities can be provided.

Mr. Mack: Is there any connection between this President Farrell and similar elements in the Irish Free State who are causing embarrassment by their relationship with the Axis?

Mr. Astor: Is it not a fact that ships are coming from the Argentine without navicerts?

Mr. Eden: We are certainly receiving supplies from the Argentine.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA AND FINLAND

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement on the progress of negotiations between the Soviet Union and Finland; and whether the proposals of the Soviet Government have received the approval of His Majesty's Government.

Sir Oliver Simmonds: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the present situation with regard to the Russo-Finnish peace talks.

Mr. Eden: I have nothing to add to the Soviet Government's statement broadcast from Moscow on 21st March. His Majesty's Government were consulted about the Soviet Government's proposals, and have indeed been in close contact with them throughout.

Mr. Thorne: Is there any truth in the statement that there are many divisions of German soldiers in Finland?

Mr. Eden: There are certainly some, according to my recent information.

Mr. McGovern: Is there a policy to threaten Finland out of the war and to demand Eire coming into the war?

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALY (FUTURE ADMINISTRATION)

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent General Badoglio's announcement that all discussions of measures touching the future organisation of the Italian state must be postponed to the end of the war, effects the declaration of the Prime Minister that it had been provisionally agreed by Great Britain and the U.S.A. to take a new view of the position after the occupation of Rome.

Mr. Eden: The announcement to which my hon. Friend refers does not affect the position.

Oral Answers to Questions — WESTERN EUROPEAN NATIONS (CO-OPERATION)

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has studied recent speeches by M. van Kleffens, Foreign Minister of the Netherlands, and General de Gaulle, for France, asking for a closer association of the nations of Western Europe, on the lines adumbrated by General Smuts; and whether he will take soundings among the governments of these nations with a view to ascertaining the extent of this desire.

Mr. Eden: A study of recent speeches by the three statesmen mentioned does not suggest that they were thinking on exactly the same lines, but I can assure


the hon. Member that His Majesty's Government maintain close touch with all Allied Governments with whom there is a constant exchange of views.

Mr. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the nations of Western Europe are awaiting a lead from His Majesty's Government and are prepared to go exactly as far as they will go?

Mr. Eden: It has been made quite clear that His Majesty's Government prefer European unity rather than a division of Europe into any spheres of influence.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA AND RUMANIA (TRANSYLVANIA)

Mr. I. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government associate themselves with the Soviet declaration to restore to Rumania the northern half of Transylvania.

Mr. Eden: I am not aware that the Soviet Government have made any such declaration.

Mr. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that President Benes has disclosed this information?

Mr. Eden: I am dealing with what the Soviet Government have said and not what somebody else, however eminent, may have reported them to have said.

Mr. Price: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman has received no intimation from the Government of the U.S.S.R. about their intentions and desires in regard to Transylvania?

Mr. Eden: I have never said that. We are in constant communication with our Allies on this subject. What I said was that they have made no such declaration.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Sortie (Definition)

Mr. Granville: asked the Secretary of State for Air the meaning of the term "sortie" as applied to flying operations against the enemy and referred to in communiques issued by R.A.F. commands; and whether, in view of the uncertainty as to what this means, he will define it more precisely.

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): The meaning of this term as applied to flying operations against the enemy is "one flight by one aircraft."

Mr. Granville: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to the dictionary, "sortie" is a French word? Would not "operational flight" be clearer Basic English?

Sir A. Sinclair: This is a term which the Royal Air Force have used ever since the beginning of the war, and we believe it to be quite a good one.

Mr. Hopkinson: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the precise difference between a "sortie" and a "sneak raid"?

Sir A. Sinclair: I have been asked to explain "sortie" and I have done it.

W.A.A.F. (Pay)

Major Lyons: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will now reconsider the arrangement whereby officers and other ranks of the W.A.A.F. who replace officers and other ranks of the R.A.F. get less pay than the male tradesmen replaced.

Sir A. Sinclair: W.A.A.F. personnel receive two-thirds of the corresponding R.A.F. rates of pay, and this practice is common to all three Women's Services.

Major Lyons: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great public feeling against what is thought to be an injustice, and in the light of relevant considerations on the question of differentiation of pay, will he reconsider the whole situation?

Sir A. Sinclair: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend is aware that this is a subject which does not solely concern my Department and that it cannot be decided in isolation by one Department.

Mr. Sorensen: If the principle of equal pay between men and women teachers is accepted by the Government, will the right hon. Gentleman apply the same principle to women in the Services?

Sir A. Sinclair: This a matter which, as I have said, cannot be considered in isolation by any one Department. It can only be decided as a whole, and I have no reason to suppose that there will be any alteration in these Regulations.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: Why does the right hon. Gentleman pay W.A.A.F. women doctors the same as men doctors, but fail to do the same justice to other ranks?

Sir A. Sinclair: If my hon. Friend will put down a question about women doctors I will answer it. Meanwhile, I am answering a question about W.A.A.F. personnel.

Personnel, Azores (Welfare)

Mr. R. J. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether adequate provision for entertainment is provided for the servicemen in the Azores and especially the installation of wireless receiving sets to enable the men to listen in to B.B.C. broadcasting.

Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir. The usual provision has been made. Wireless sets, pianos and gramophones have been supplied and more are on the way. Cinema programmes have been arranged and other forms of entertainment have been organised locally.

Operations, Europe (Enemy Fighter Opposition)

Sir O. Simmonds: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he can make any statement with regard to the nature and extent of fighter opposition in recent British night and day bombing raids over enemy territory.

Sir A. Sinclair: The fighter force at the enemy's disposal in Western Europe is still formidable and undoubtedly many hard battles lie ahead.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Sinking of "Scharnhorst" (Awards)

Colonel Greenwell: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been drawn to the fact that, in the recent list of awards to officers for gallant and distinguished conduct in conection with the sinking of the battle cruiser "Scharnhorst," 27 of such awards were made to officers of the R.N., while officers of the R.N.R. and R.N.V.R. were only awarded three in all, including one to a non-combatant officer; and if, to avoid wrong inferences being drawn by the public, he will take steps to ensure that recommendations for honours in future are made

on a basis more in keeping with the relative numbers of officers of the various branches of the service.

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): Recommendations for awards to officers are based on the quality of their services and are made in the first instance by commanding officers. I cannot agree that any other system would result in a just recognition of gallant and distinguished conduct.

Colonel Greenwell: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the clear implication of his answer is that the quality of service and gallantry of Regular officers is nine times that of non-Regulars; and as these recommendations are made by Regular officers will he see that non-Regular officers get a little better recognition?

Mr. Alexander: I must say that on the records during the war such an interpretation would be quite unfair. There are many operations in which the only awards gained are by R.N.R. or R.N.V.R. officers. It happens in this particular kind of action that naval officers are in greater numerical strength than the others, but over 900 recommendations for distinguished conduct have been made and awarded to R.N.R. and R.N.V.R. officers.

Commander Agnew: Is it not a fact that in the case of the light coastal forces, nearly the whole of the awards were given to R.N.R. officers because it is they who primarily take part?

Mr. Alexander: Yes, Sir.

Africa Star

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the ribbon of the Africa Star will be available for issue to naval personnel entitled thereto.

Mr. Alexander: It is intended that the Africa Sitar ribbon shall be issued to Naval personnel as soon as possible after the qualifications for the 1939–43 Star have been finally settled.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Army personnel who are entitled to these ribbons have now been thus gloriously arrayed for many weeks and, in view of


the comparatively small number of naval officers and ratings involved, may I ask whether he can use his good offices to expedite a decision in the matter?

Mr. Alexander: As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, the 1939–43 Star takes precedence in the Royal Navy and the question as to who are entitled to it cannot be settled until full consideration has been given to the recent Debate.

Mr. Astor: In view of the fact that many naval officers are clearly entitled to the Africa Star, and not the 1939–43 Star, could they not be given the Africa Star without prejudice to borderline cases?

Mr. Alexander: I do not think I can add to my statement that nothing more can be done until the matter has been settled in the light of our consideration of the recent Debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — GAMBIA

NATIVE LANDS (ADMINISTRATION)

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether provision has now been made for the administration of native lands in Gambia by native authorities in their own interests; and whether machinery is now in existence in Gambia for the investigation and settlement of doubtful claims against the Crown in areas where original Crown ownership is indisputable.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Colonel Oliver Stanley): With my approval, the Governor of the Gambia announced last year his intention to introduce into the Legislative Council a series of Bills having as their general object the removal of obstacles to the effective development of land in the Colony and Protectorate of Gambia. This legislation, when completed, will provide machinery for the settlement of doubtful questions in regard to ownership, and will declare all land not under private or Crown ownership to be native lands which will be administered primarily for the benefit of the indigenous inhabitants. Native authorities will play an increasing part in this administration. The first of this series of Bills has already been introduced and has passed through the Legislative Council.

Mr. Turton: Do I understand from my right hon. and gallant Friend that there is now provision in Gambia for the administration of native lands by native authorities?

Colonel Stanley: They will be associated with the administration of these lands, when the lands are declared vacant.

Legislative Council (African Representation)

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have recently been taken in Gambia to increase the association of Africans wtih the Central Government.

Colonel Stanley: Hitherto, African representation on the Legislative Council has consisted of three out of four unofficial members, all nominated by the Governor. Recently, however, I have approved proposals from the Governor which will introduce the principle of election. These proposals provide for the election of one member to represent the one urban constituency in the territory, and for the nomination of three members. Two of the latter must be Africans, and one of the two Africans will represent the interests of the Protectorate as distinct from the Colony. The necessary instrument for implementing these proposals is now under preparation.

Sir Herbert Williams: Are both sides represented, having regard to the curious shape of this Colony?

Colonel Stanley: Yes, Sir, just like both sides of the street in the hon. Member's constituency.

Sir H. Williams: This is a serious and not a frivolous question. Gambia is about 300 miles long and six miles wide and a river runs down the centre. There is a difference between the North and the South.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS

Strike

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what further disturbances have taken place in Cyprus; and what action is being taken to deal with the causes of the discontent.

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is satisfied with the conditions now obtaining in Cyprus, particularly with regard to the relation between prices and wages.

Sir Alfred Beit: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to acts of violence arising from labour difficulties in Cyprus; what action has been taken with the offenders and to prevent their recurrence; and if he can say how they arose.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action he proposes to take to prevent undernourishment and disease in Cyprus due to high prices of food, fuel and clothing; and if direct negotiations are now taking place with Cypriot trade union representatives to evolve a policy with the view of bringing wages more into line with the cost of living now 280 per cent. above prewar.

Colonel Stanley: I am glad to say that the strike in Cyprus was settled on 24th March, the Government's offer of an inquiry, which had been made some days previously, being accepted. In view of the interest which has been shown in this strike, I will with hon. Members' permission, circulate a full statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT. This also covers the specific points raised in these Questions.

Mr. Sorensen: Will that statement also include any indication of the steps that are being taken to prevent privation in Cyprus? I am sure that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware that there has been a very considerable amount of privation, which has stimulated the strikes. Is he satisfied that action is now being taken to meet that situation?

Colonel Stanley: There are difficulties there as elsewhere, but I am aware that some unfounded statements have been made, some of which have found their place in these Questions. I shall deal with them in the statement to which I have referred.

Mr. Mathers: In view of the longstanding distrust in Cyprus in consequence of the lack of confidence in the information on which the Government are working as to the cost of living, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the desir-

ability of sending out to Cyprus some independent person who will go into this matter and try to reach a reasonable settlement?

Colonel Stanley: No, Sir. I think the Government are perfectly capable of doing it. With regard to the distrust, that is fostered when inaccurate statements are made such as are included in the hon. Member's Question. For example, he refers to "280 per cent. above pre-war" when the actual figure is 137 per cent.

Sir Alfred Beit: Is there not a great difference between a strike, which is a legitimate weapon, and an act of violence? Will my right hon. and gallant Friend make some reference to the act of violence?

Colonel Stanley: Yes, Sir, I will deal with that point.

Mr. Dugdale: Will there be any opportunity of discussing this report at a later date? It is impossible to discuss it by question and answer.

Colonel Stanley: It is not a report. It is a circulated statement. When hon. Members have read it, it is always possible for them to put a Question down about it.

Following is the Statement:

As has been reported in the Press, a strike took place in Cyprus between 1st and 24th March. About 1,800 men were affected, of whom some 1,200 were employed directly by the Army on military projects and over 400 by the Government of Cyprus on work for the Army. More than two-thirds of the strikers were skilled men. On the 13th March about 5,000 additional men struck in sympathy for one day, bringing military and Government works almost completely to standstill. In order to ensure the continuance of essential military works, skilled military labour was sent for from other sources, and a workshop company of the Cyprus Volunteer Force was called up on 20th March. Apart from demonstrations on 19th March at Larnaca where stones were thrown at the police and at Famagusta where it was necessary for the police to use batons and fire-hoses to disperse the crowd, there has been no disorder. No prosecutions have been instituted by the police as a result of these demonstrations.

The demand of the unions was for an increase in wages, mainly in the wages of unskilled labour. The wages of labour employed on Government work in Cyprus have been substantially increased during the war, the last increase being one of 6 piastres a day, granted on the 1st January which brought the rate to 4 shillings 6 piastres a day. The pre-war rate varied in different districts, the average being 1 shilling 6 piastres a day (there are 9 piastres to the shilling). The current rate therefore represents an increase of 180 per cent. over the average pre-war rate. The official figures show an increase in the cost of living of 144 per cent. in February and 137 per cent. in March over the prewar level. In these circumstances the Government did not feel justified in granting the demand for an increase in wages.

On 12th March an official communiqué was issued in Cyprus promising that the Government would carry out a further inquiry into the relation between wages and the cost of living when the strike was over, and would take account of all available evidence, including the figures which had recently been communicated to them by the trade unions. The inquiry will cover all questions of wages and conditions of employment and the cost of living, and special attention will be given to the wages and allowances of employees who may have a claim to additional pay on the ground of special skill, difficult conditions or long service.

On 24th March the strike ended. The inquiry which is being conducted by three senior Government officials, the Colonial Secretary, the Commissioner of Labour and the Director of Medical Services will begin at once, and the trade unions have undertaken to give their assistance.

As regards the first part of the Question by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) I am aware that it has been alleged that tuberculosis and infant mortality have increased and that the increase is due to under-nourishment. The actual figures are as follow:

Tuberculosis

Average annual number of new cases in the years

1934–39
…
…
…
226

Number of new cases in


1940
…
…
…
202


1941
…
…
…
191


1942
…
…
…
253


1943
…
…
…
238

Infant Mortality

Average annual mortality per thousand births in the years

1934–39
…
…
123.9

Rate in



Per thousand births.


1940
…
…
…
88.8


1941
…
…
…
107.6


1942
…
…
…
184.6


1943
…
…
…
120.8

The medical authorities in Cyprus do not attribute the increased figures for 1942 to under-nourishment. Of the increased figure for tuberculosis in 1942, 10 cases occurred among refugees and 33 among the military. The high rate of infant mortality in that year was due to an epidemic of measles with pneumonic complications. In both cases the figures for 1943 show an improvement and in the case of infant mortality the rate for 1943 is below the average for the six years before the war.

Cost of Living

Sir A. Beit: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the increase in the cost of living in Cyprus since the outbreak of war; and why the recent bonus granted to civil servants in the island was in no case equivalent to that increase and, in most cases, fell far short of it.

Colonel Stanley: The cost of living in Cyprus has risen by 137 per cent. as compared with pre-war levels. The arrangements recently approved limited the amount of bonus to 100 per cent. of salary in the lowest grades, the proportion diminishing as salary increases. The Governor of Cyprus considered that a bonus on this scale was adequate, but since it was approved he has received further representations from the civil servants, and, as a result, the whole question is being re-examined by a body which will include representatives of the Civil Service associations.

Mr. Mathers: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the grave doubts there have been over the ascertainment of the cost of living in Cyprus?


Will he not try to send someone independent to go into the matter on the spot?

Colonel Stanley: No, Sir. I have been into this question very carefully during the last 12 months. The allegation was made before.

Mr. Sorensen: When are we likely to have some report dealing with the whole situation?

Colonel Stanley: There are those two inquiries, one dealing with the Civil Service and one dealing with industrial employees. I cannot say when they will be in a position to report.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST AFRICA (COCOA INDUSTRY)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action he proposes to take to ensure to West African cocoa producers more adequate remuneration; whether the agricultural adviser has taken steps to deal with the spread of cocoa disease; and, in view of the importance of the industry, what steps are being taken to maintain it pending a post-war plan for its control and prosperity.

Colonel Stanley: As a result of a full examination of the position of the cocoa industry in West Africa, in consultation with the Governments concerned and the Resident Minister in West Africa, substantial price increases have been announced in the Gold Coast and Nigeria for the next crops. With regard to the second part of the Question, an organisation for research into, and the control of, the West African cocoa diseases is already at work, and arrangements are being made to strengthen it. As regards the last part of the Question, it is intended that the controlled purchase by His Majesty's Government of the entire cocoa crops of the territories concerned shall continue, at any rate for the next two years, during which time consideration will be given to the framing of a long-term policy for the industry.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES

Trade with United States

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the difficulty of finding markets for the whole of the West Indian exports, His

Majesty's Government will consider initiating negotiations on behalf of the West Indian Colonies for a reciprocity trade agreement between the U.S.A. and the British West Indies.

Colonel Stanley: British West Indian Colonies are already included in the scope of the Trade Agreement of 1938 between the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Such difficulties as at present exist in finding markets for West Indian exports are mainly due to war conditions and particularly limitations of shipping. I do not consider that any useful purpose would be served at present by considering negotiations as proposed in the second part of the question. I should, of course, be happy to consider any particular difficulties if the hon. Member will let me know what he has in mind.

Administrative Posts (Local Appointments)

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the continuing dissatisfaction in the West Indies with reference to the practice of appointing administrative officers from abroad before investigation has been made as to suitable local appointments or in other West Indian Colonies; whether it is the practice to advertise administrative vacancies in the West Indies; whether he has considered a memorandum from the British Guiana Civil Servants' Association on this subject; and what action he proposes to take.

Colonel Stanley: I have received the memorandum and have promised to give it full consideration, in connection with the general review of Colonial Service organisation which is now proceeding. It is not the practice to advertise administrative vacancies in the West Indies, but every consideration is given to local candidates and in fact virtually all the junior and a large number of the senior administrative posts in the area are filled by West Indians.

Mr. Riley: In view of the fact that it is not the Ministry's custom to advertise vacancies, may I ask what are the means taken to ascertain likely applicants?

Colonel Stanley: My hon. Friend is talking about vacancies in the Civil Service. We do not advertise here for applicants for vacancies for the Civil Service.


The records are known of members of the Civil Service, who are promoted on them.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH HONDURAS (EMPLOYMENT)

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether his attention has been called to unemployment amongst members of the British Honduras forestry unit who have returned to the Colony from this country; and whether he can give information as to the measures which are being taken to provide employment for these men and for labourers returning from Panama;
(2) what steps have been taken in consequence of inquiries made on behalf of the Government of the U.S.A. for labourers from British Honduras to undertake work in the U.S.A.

Colonel Stanley: Yes, Sir. Plans for development works have been prepared by the Colonial Government so that work can be started without delay. Discussions are also proceeding between the Colonial Government and the U.S. authorities regarding the possibility of the employment of some men from British Honduras for work in the U.S.A. I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Harvey: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that there is already unemployment among the returned labourers? Is it not urgent that some of these schemes should be put into operation at once?

Colonel Stanley: Arrangements are being made for work to be started at once but I am informed that so far few applicants have been looking for work. Most of them have returned from this country with very substantial sums.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFRICANS (SHIPPING PASSAGES TO GREAT BRITAIN)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many cases of racial discrimination against African passengers desiring to sail to this country have been brought to his notice; in how many cases the passenger was not permitted to sail because of such discrimination and involved in heavy expenses for

accommodation in consequence; and whether, in such cases, the shipping company will be required to meet the cost of the delay.

Colonel Stanley: Only one specific instance of alleged racial discrimination in this matter has so far been brought to my notice. Details of that case have recently been communicated to me by my hon. Friend, and I am arranging for its immediate investigation.

Mr. Sorensen: Does that mean that if the case is proven, in fact this man will not be made to pay this very large sum for being detained through racial discrimination?

Colonel Stanley: I am investigating the case, and I will communicate with the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Haulage Scheme

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport if he is aware that a North of England firm of hauliers operating 10 vehicles on long-distance work were, prior to control, running to a perfect time-table with vehicles averaging 2,000 miles each per week, whereas, under the present scheme, their average per week is about 550 miles fully loaded and 200 miles empty; and what steps he is taking to work these vehicles to capacity.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): If my hon. Friend will give me the name of the firm to which he refers I will be happy to make inquiries.

Mr. Edwards: Is the Minister not satisfied now, through the number of complaints that he has had, that there are grave deficiencies for the control for which he is responsible?

Mr. Noel-Baker: No, Sir, I am not satisfied. Whenever I get a chance to get at the facts I find that in almost every case there is a perfectly good explanation. It is quite useless to make allegations in general terms.

Sir H. Williams: Has the hon. Member read the Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure criticising the scheme?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, I have read it, and I think that in due course my Noble Friend will be desirous of making some observations on the Report.

Captain Strickland: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport why a five-ton Bedford lorry belonging to Mr. C. H. Ward, haulage contractor of Send, Surrey, was despatched on 25th February from the garage at Ripley to report at Guildford to pick up a load of 33 cartons of baby rag dolls and a bundle of empty sacks weighing eight cwts.; why a man was detailed at Guildford to accompany the driver and make three purchasing calls at various stores on the journey which included collecting five parcels of one and a half cwts. at Walham Green and 30 lbs. of rags at 44, Hatton Garden, two parcels at Harding Dye Works, Kingston-on-Thames, and a sewing machine at Guildford; and whether he is satisfied that this round, occupying 10½ hours and consuming 10 gallons of petrol was urgent and essential.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am not fully satisfied about the use made of this lorry, and I am making further inquiries.

Captain Strickland: Is there any hope that this mismanagement of road transport by the State will receive the Minister's serious consideration?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I shall take note of the terms of the hon. and gallant Member's Question. The whole of the road haulage organisation receives continual consideration from my Noble Friend and myself.

Mr. Mathers: Will the Minister say, if these difficulties that are continually exposed by the hon. and gallant Member arise when there is a close control, what is likely to have been the position when the matter was subject to the chaos of private enterprise?

Sir O. Simmonds: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport why hired undertakings under the Ministry of War Transport haulage organisation receive disadvantageous financial treatment compared with controlled undertakings.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I do not accept my hon. Friend's suggestion that the remuneration for vehicles hired by the Road

Haulage Organisation compares unfavourably with the average remuneration of controlled undertakings.

Sir O. Simmonds: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is grave dissatisfaction about these inequalities, and will be receive a deputation from these hired operators?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am always happy to receive a deputation. There is, in fact, established machinery, initiated by my Noble Friend, for dealing with such questions. There was a recent meeting about the rates paid for hired vehicles, and full agreement was reached.

Accidents

Mr. Graham White: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport if he will arrange to include in the monthly returns of road fatalities an analysis indicating the number of each class of vehicle involved in fatal accidents.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, I will gladly make arrangements to carry out my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD

Working Expenses (Publication)

Sir H. Williams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport why the L.P.T.B. was prohibited by him from publishing its working expenses.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am advised that it would be contrary to the public interest to publish the working expenses of the London Passenger Transport Board.

Sir H. Williams: Is it not time that we now had some explanation as to why information cannot be published which cannot divulge any information to the enemy whatsoever?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think the hon. Member makes a wrong assumption. I am assured by the competent authorities, whose advice I must accept, that it would divulge information of interest to the enemy.

Hon. Members: Why?

Mr. Shinwell: What is all this mystery about? How is it possible, if the working expenses of this Board are published, that the information can possibly afford any comfort to the enemy? Which particular item could afford such comfort? If there is any particular item which has to be undisclosed, let it be undisclosed.

Mr. Noel-Baker: We cannot publish some items and not others. I will furnish to my hon. Friends, if they desire it, the advice I have been given. In any case we cannot give the hon. Member the figures he desires, because there is no clearance with the main line companies of working expenses. We could not get the figures out.

Sir H. Williams: Then why say it is on grounds of security when it is on grounds of accountancy?

Mr. Noel-Baker: It is on both grounds.

Mr. Petherick: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the profits of the main line railways are published? Is there any reason, as that does not seem to help the enemy, why the accounts of the London Passenger Transport Board should not be published?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Not their working expenses.

Sir O. Simmonds: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether the publication of this information would show the inefficiency of State control?

Mr. Noel-Baker: That consideration has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Shinwell: Could I ask my hon. Friend whether, in view of the obvious feeling of the House, he will reconsider this matter, and come forward with a statement?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, I will certainly reconsider it, and if the hon. Member will put down a Question I will make another statement.

Trustees

Sir H. Williams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport if he will state the names and the qualifications of the Appointing Trustees under the London Passenger Transport Act.

Mr. Noel-Baker: With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate the information he desires in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

It is provided by Section 1 (1) of the London Passenger Transport Act 1933 that the Appointing Trustees shall consist of the following persons:

The Chairman of the London County Council;
a representative of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee;
the Chairman of the Committee of London Clearing Bankers;
the President of the Law Society;
the President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales;

In the case of appointments to fill vacancies in the Board at any time after the first constitution of the Board, the Chairman of the Board or some other member of the Board nominated by the Board for the purpose.

The Trustees for the time being are:

Mr. Somerville Hastings, M.S., F.R.C.S.—Chairman of the London County Council.
Sir Harry Vanderpant—London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee.
Mr. Colin F. Campbell, J.P.—Chairman of the Committee of the London Clearing Bankers.
Mr. Ernest Bird—President of the Law Society.
Mr. C. J. G. Palmour, F.C.A.— President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants.
Lord Ashfield—Chairman of the Board.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Oranges

Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: asked the Minister of Food whether his attention has been called to the destruction of oranges at Hull owing to the deterioration of these oranges through long storage; and whether he will arrange to expedite the distribution of fruit so as to avoid this waste in future.

The Minister of Food (Colonel Llewellin): Yes, Sir. Unfortunately a large quantity of oranges arriving in one ship were bad. This was due to wartime shipping conditions. Distribution of the good oranges started on the first day of discharge.

Sir A. Lambert Ward: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman inform the House whether any attempt was made to sort and salvage these oranges, as many were fit for consumption?

Colonel Llewellin: Yes, Sir, only about 20 per cent. were bad. These unfortunately had to be dumped. The rest were distributed.

Sir H. Williams: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that many of those which were distributed were bad? I saw a great many in the shops that were bad.

Colonel Llewellin: That is quite a different question.

Sir H. Williams: asked the Minister of Food why it is that such a large proportion of the oranges recently distributed were bad.

Colonel Llewellin: A very large proportion of the oranges recently distributed have on the contrary been good, and have I believe been much appreciated.

Olive Oil Imports

Major Peto: asked the Minister of Food, in view of the shortage of cooking fats, to what extent he is importing to this country olive oil, especially in view of its high nutritive value.

Colonel Llewellin: My Department is importing as much olive oil as is surplus to the local requirements of the producing areas.

Commander Agnew: Could this be made available to fish and chip shops?

Colonel Llewellin: No, I am afraid there is not enough for that.

Cereals (Brewing, Ireland)

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Minister of Food if he will state the number of man-hours required to load, transport, unload and brew into beer any given quantity of cereals sent, under the present arrangements, to Ireland for brewing and the man-hours required to ship back the beer, compared with the man-hours required to brew the beer, in the existing English end Scottish breweries.

Colonel Llewellin: I regret that the detailed information desired by my hon. Friend is not available, but I am satisfied that the arrangement is economical in the use of United Kingdom man-power.

Mr. Woodburn: Is it not extremely wasteful in transport to take cereals to Ireland and bring beer back to this country, when it could be brewed here with very little labour?

Colonel Llewellin: We have not the man-power to-day to brew the beer here. As a matter of fact one ton of cereals produces six tons of beer, and the beer from Ireland is only shipped coastwise to the coastal districts of this country.

Mr. Mathers: Is there not something wrong when there is too much beer being brewed to be met by the man-power of this country?

Professor Savory: Is there not very considerable risk in this traffic to the lives of our seamen?

Colonel Llewellin: No, Sir. Fortuately there have recently been no losses in what I think is termed the Irish Sea.

Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that there is a shameful shortage of feed for chickens, and that Members of Parliament would rather have a good fried egg than a pint of beer?

Colonel Llewellin: My aim is to give people both eggs and beer.

Fish and Chip Shops, Camborne

Commander Agnew: asked the Minister of Food the number of fish and chip shops operating in Camborne in 1939 and in each subsequent year.

Colonel Llewellin: Nine in 1939, and five in each subsequent year.

Commander Agnew: Does that not show that the present number of these fish and chip shops for the large industrial population of Camborne is quite inadequate? Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider, therefore, whether some of the existing fat allocation in the hands of private traders which is not now being used shall be re-allocated to traders who will use it?

Colonel Llewellin: No, the allocation of fish and fats is distributed on a population basis, and if more fried fish shops were to be opened in Camborne, it would mean that the existing fried fish shops would get less fish and less fat.

Sir A. Beit: Is it really suggested that the health of the nation would be improved by a vast increase in the number of fish and chip shops?

Mr. Sorensen: Is the criterion of population enough, seeing that some areas consume far less fish and chips than others, because of different tastes?

Restaurant, London (Charges)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that a London restaurant of modest amenity, of the name of which he has been informed, charges 30s. for a medium-sized carafe of inferior Algerian wine; that this restaurant is permitted by his Ministry to make a house-charge of 2s. 6d. a head in addition to the 5s. maximum charge for a meal, 1s. 3d. for a single small cup of coffee, etc.; and what steps he is taking to check this type of profiteering.

Colonel Llewellin: With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's Question, I have no information other than that which he has sent me, but I understand that the wine served was not Algerian quota wine. The answer to the second part of the Question is that, while the house charge is regulated by my Department, the price of coffee served in catering establishments is not controlled. As regards the last part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on the 15th March to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Dr. H. Guest).

Mr. Driberg: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that he has put us in a rather difficult position, because when general charges of racketeering in wines and spirits are made he says that he cannot deal with general charges, that he must have particulars; but if we give him the particulars he then appears to brush them aside with equanimity?

Colonel Llewellin: No. For all the Ministry imported Algerian wine we have, by arrangement, a set price. We cannot fix prices for every type of wine served in restaurants or other catering establishments.

Mr. Driberg: But is it not the case that the Government do fix prices for a large number of commodities which are not essential to life, and is it not the case that this is a large and growing racket?

Colonel Llewellin: Wine is a luxury, not an essential.

Mr. Reakes: In view of the confession of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman

that he has no first-hand information on this subject, will he make a tour in order to get first-hand information on what is a notorious ramp?

Colonel Llewellin: I am afraid I have not time to make a tour of all the restaurants in London.

Workers (Rations)

Mr. Foster: asked the Minister of Food the weekly ration of the following foods: meat, butter or margarine, sugar, bacon or ham and eggs, allowed to merchant seamen, miners, dockers and other industrial workers, giving the amounts separately in each case.

Colonel Llewellin: As the answer is somewhat long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Crews of British sea-going ships receive food in accordance with a statutory scale prescribed under the Merchant Shipping Acts, the weekly amounts of the foods specified in the Question being:

oz.


Meat
…
…
120


Fats
…
…
15¼


Sugar
…
…
30


Bacon and ham
…
…
8

One shell egg per allocation and one packet of dried egg per allocation.

When on shore merchant seamen are entitled to the ordinary civilian rations. The domestic ration of the foods mentioned by my hon. Friend for miners, dockers and other industrial workers is the same as for any other adult civilian, to which must be added meals taken in industrial or pit-head canteens, or other catering establishments.

Herring Fishing Industry

Mr. Boothby: asked the Minister of Food whether he will consult with the Ministry of War Transport with a view to the provision of special transport facilities from the ports of landing during the height of the summer herring fishing.

Colonel Llewellin: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Boothby: asked the Minister of Food (1) whether he is taking the necessary steps to prevent a recurrence of the events which took place last year in connection with the summer herring


fishing; and, in particular, whether he has under consideration the question of fixing a minimum price for herring not cured into barrels;
(2) whether he is taking any steps to secure an adequate quantity of materials, including barrels and salt, and of labour, for the forthcoming herring-fishing season.

Colonel Llewellin: Proposals covering all the various points raised by my hon. Friend are already under discussion between the Departments, trade interests and fishermen concerned.

Mr. Boothby: Could my right hon. and gallant Friend give us an assurance that this great harvest of the sea will not again be wasted in this forthcoming season, as it was in the last season?

Colonel Llwellin: I cannot give an assurance, but we are going to do our best to see that it is not wasted.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION

Leaflets on Enemy Territory (Publication)

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Minister of Information whether, in view of the fact that the American Office of War Information now release for publication in the American Press copies of leaflets dropped by the American Air Force over Germany, he will do the same in respect of leaflets dropped by the R.A.F.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Information why leaflets dropped over Germany by the R.A.F. and U.S.A.F. have been published in America, and yet for security reasons are not allowed to be published here; and will he now place translated copies of all such leaflets in the Library.

The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): There has been no difference between the policies of the American Office of War Information and of the Political Warfare Executive in regard to the publication of leaflets. The leaflet recently released to the Press in the United States is one which had previously been published in Sweden. Many leaflets are directly concerned with military operations, and this precludes their being released for publication as a matter

of routine. I hope, however, that it will shortly prove possible to make arrangements for the co-ordinated release of certain categories of British and American leaflets, and I should be glad to arrange for these to be made available in the Library.

Mr. Strauss: What categories has the right hon. Gentleman in mind, and why should they not be released generally, instead of only to Members of Parliament?

Mr. Bracken: The categories I have in mind are operational leaflets, which are prepared by the P.W.E. for the Allied Command. It is quite impossible for me to release those categories for the House.

Mr. Strauss: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my question. I asked what categories he has in mind that could be released, and why they could not be released generally, instead of only for the Library of the House of Commons?

Mr. Bracken: We cannot release these all over the country, because there is a shortage of paper, but the categories which I hope will be released are the ordinary propagandist leaflets and some of the newspapers which we drop on Germany. I cannot guarantee that the ordinary operational leaflets will be put in the Library or shown to anyone.

Mr. Stokes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when I put the Question down the first time it was returned for security reasons, although the leaflets had been published in America? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the newspapers in this country have reported that a number of leaflets have been published?

Mr. Bracken: I will look into the matter, but I do not think that a number have been published.

Sir William Davison: In view of statements that leaflets have been circulated from this country in order to interfere with the Presidential election in America, can my right hon. Friend make a denial that any such leaflets have been circulated?

Mr. Bracken: I must remind my hon. Friend that the R.A.F. are not dropping leaflets over Germany in order to return President Roosevelt.

News Reels (Australia and New Zealand)

Lady Apsley: asked the Minister of Information whether there is any means by which British contributions to the news reels can be made available to Australia and New Zealand before they become out of date.

Mr. Bracken: We have been doing our best about this, and there has been much improvement. For several months past the most important British news reel items have been sent weekly by air to Australia and thence to New Zealand, and have been given priority all the way. Almost all the items sent in this way have appeared in the Australian and New Zealand news reels.

Viscountess Astor: Could the Minister send a news reel of Plymouth? It would be most inspirational.

Mr. Bracken: Everything that comes from Plymouth is most inspirational.

Tanks (Newspaper Article)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Information whether the article on tanks published in the "Sunday Pictorial" of 31st October, 1943, stating that the A 22 with 6 lb. gun out-gunned and was a better tank than the German Tiger equipped with 88 mm. gun firing a 28 lb. shot, was submitted to the censor before publication.

Mr. Bracken: Yes, Sir. An article to this effect was submitted to the Censor. I need hardly remind the hon. Gentleman that the censor had no responsibility for any of the statements made in this article.

Mr. Stokes: Does my right hon. Friend think it fair to the fighting soldier that he should be misrepresented in this way in a British newspaper?

Mr. Bracken: No, Sir. But the hon. Gentleman's suggestion really is that newspapers should be edited by the censors. I believe in free speech, and I would not allow censors to edit newspapers.

Mr. Stokes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that great resentment was felt by fighting soldiers because of this article, which had passed the censorship?

Mr. Bracken: This very severe attack on the "Sunday Pictorial" will be greatly resented by that paper, which has so staunchly supported my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Overseas Troops (Duty-Free Cigarettes and Tobacco)

Mr. Storey: asked the Postmaster-General whether his Department undertakes any responsibility under the scheme for sending duty-free cigarettes and tobacco to the troops overseas other than transmitting the parcels received from the wholesale tobacco companies.

The Postmaster - General (Captain Crookshank): My Department is responsible only for the period between the posting of the parcels and their handing over to the military authorities.

Mr. Storey: Has the attention of my right hon. and gallant Friend been drawn to a statement in the "Daily Mail" that Post Office officials agree that some tobacconists pocket the money they receive for duty-free cigarettes? Will he make it quite clear that no official in his Department has evidence to justify such a slanderous statement?

Captain Crookshank: Certainly it sounds very slanderous, but I have not seen the article. I must see it first.

EFM Telegrams

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the list of EFM standard text telegrams used for the transmission of messages to serving men by code numbers contains no message such as "I am going to have a baby"; and will he include a number for this information.

Captain Crookshank: Yes, Sir. But the EFM service with standard phrases has been available for nearly three years, and I have not previously heard of any request for the inclusion of a message such as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests. If there is a great demand for the inclusion of such a message among the EFM phrases, I will endeavour to arrange this when the list is next revised.

Sir I. Fraser: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that there is an increasing number of happy young expectant mothers who want to send these messages?

Captain Crookshank: There are also other means of communicating with their husbands.

Captain Cobb: Is there any code number for the message, "I am not going to have a baby"?

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that sometimes such a message will be received with considerable bewilderment?

Parcels from Overseas (Charges)

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider a reduction in the rates charged for parcels and newspapers sent by Forces stationed overseas to their relatives.

Captain Crookshank: For the most part, British troops serving overseas already enjoy special low rates of postage on parcels addressed to the United Kingdom, the minimum postage being 9d. for a parcel up to 3 lb. in weight. In addition, the troops are allowed free postage on postal packets (including newspapers) up to 2 ounces in weight sent by surface route; postage has to be paid on newspapers over 2 ounces but the rate is low, namely, ½d. per 2 ounces. I regret that it is not practicable to make any further concession.

Mr. Dugdale: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that a friend of mine recently received a packet of eight Army newspapers, weighing less than 5 ozs., on which 9d. was paid? Does he not think that this is somewhat excessive, as soldiers do not get very high pay?

Captain Crookshank: I should like to look into that case. Perhaps some mistake has been made.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Escaped Prisoners of War (Acting Rank)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) how many men who have escaped from prisoners of war camps and rejoined the Foroes have been reduced in rank; and
(2) why a sergeant, of whose name he has been informed, who succeeded in escaping from an Italian prison camp to this country, has been reduced to the rank of corporal; would he have been entitled to retain the rank of sergeant if he had remained a prisoner of war; and will he consider restoring this man to his former rank.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): Acting ranks and lance appointments are normally relinquished when the warrant officer or non-commissioned officer ceases to perform the duties for which the rank was given. An exception to this rule is made in favour of prisoners of war. They are allowed to retain acting rank and lance appointment during captivity and in the case of those who are repatriated direct to the United Kingdom for a further 28 days after disembarkation. It would be unfair to other warrant officers and non-commissioned officers—and would in fact impede their promotion to war substantive rank—to extend this concession indefinitely to men who have been prisoners of war and who have been posted once more to units in the Army. I regret that no figures are available showing how many prisoners of war who have escaped have lost their acting rank in these circumstances. Provided they reach the necessary standards of efficiency and there are vacancies they stand an equal chance with others to be granted higher rank and in practice they are often likely to be re-granted their acting rank when they are re-posted to their new units.

Mr. Lipson: Does the Minister not agree that it is very desirable that prisoners of war who have escaped from enemy camps should not be penalised in any way, and is he aware that this reduction in rank causes a great deal of bitter feeling?

Mr. Henderson: I naturally have sympathy with an escaped prisoner who is an N.C.O., but we must have some regard to the position of N.C.O's, who are actually doing their duty.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that the result of that is that after inducements are held out to officers and men to escape, when they have successfully escaped their emoluments are reduced?

Captain Duncan: Is the Minister not aware that the N.C.O's are much better off in this connection than the officers?

Mr. Keeling: Is the Minister aware that another Department of the War Office have issued instructions that it is the duty of prisoners of war to escape if possible and does he think that this rule is giving them any encouragement?

Overseas Service (Skin Diseases)

Mr. Hutchinson: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps are taken to ensure that soldiers with a tendency to diseases of the skin, likely to be aggravated by service in a hot climate, are not posted to units in India or other foreign stations where they are likely to be adversely affected by the climate; and whether soldiers who are affected in this way can be re-drafted to other theatres of war without the necessity of placing them in a lower medical category.

Mr. A. Henderson: Soldiers known to suffer from diseases of the skin likely to be aggravated by service in a hot climate are now placed in medical category C2, which limits their service to the United Kingdom. At present, these men are retained in this category until such time as service overseas in a temperate climate can be guaranteed. Soldiers already serving overseas, who are down-graded to C2 on account of skin disease, are automatically Invalided to the United Kingdom. Until this is done, there are no medical grounds for posting them elsewhere.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIES (PRIORITY AREAS)

Major Sir Goronwy Owen: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give in assurance that industrialists, who are now engaged in the production of war equipment in factories owned by the Government but situated outside the four scheduled priority areas; will be given opportunities for acquiring these factories and, after the cessation of hostilities, for obtaining equipment and raw materials to enable them to establish new industries in these factories and thus absorb the available labour.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the full statement made by my right hon. Friend in the Debate on Location of Industry on 8th December last, to which he has at present nothing to add.

Sir G. Owen: Is the Minister aware that officials of his Department are already sending out letters saying that they will be unable to guarantee any raw materials, or plant, or machinery for the establish-

ment of new industries outside the four scheduled areas?

Captain Waterhouse: I am aware that a letter has been sent out suggesting to industrialists certain areas to which attention might be drawn, but the letter does not go so far as the hon. and gallant Member would seem to suggest.

Sir G. Owen: Is it not a fact that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department cannot guarantee that factories, which are now being employed for war purposes, will get plant, machinery and raw materials for a period of four or five years after the war?

Captain Waterhouse: No such guarantee was suggested in the letter.

Sir G. Owen: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in pursuance of the Government post-war policy for the location of industry, it is proposed to limit the establishment of new industries to the four areas which have already been scheduled for priority consideration.

Captain Waterhouse: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSONAL INJURY COMPENSATION (INCOME TAX)

Major Lyons: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the liability and basis of assessment for Income Tax in respect of sums specified and paid as loss of wages or income in any settlement of claims for damages for personal injury where compensation is awarded.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): A lump sum awarded as compensation for personal injury is not regarded as income for Income Tax purposes. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any particular case in mind and will send me a statement of the facts, I will have inquiries made and communicate with him in due course.

Major Lyons: May I ask whether, apart from the lump sum which is paid as compensation personally, there is an additional sum paid for loss of wages during incapacity?

Sir J. Anderson: I am very sorry, but I could not hear the question.

KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS)

Special Report from the Select Committee, brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 61.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

That they have agreed to—

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
Yorkshire Registries (West Riding) Amendment Bill.
Beckett Hospital and Dispensary, Barnsley, Bill, without Amendment.

EDUCATION BILL (GOVERNMENT DEFEAT)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): The event of yesterday requires an alteration in Government Business. It would not be possible for His Majesty's Government to leave matters where they stood when the Motion to report Progress was accepted. At this very serious time in the progress of the war, there must be no doubt or question of the support which the Government enjoy in the House of Commons. Accordingly we have decided, as the first Business on the next Sitting Day, to resume the Committee stage of the Education Bill, and to delete Clause 82, as amended, entirely from the Measure. This act of deletion will be regarded as a Vote of Confidence in the present Administration. If the Government do not secure an adequate majority, it will entail the usual constitutional consequences. Should the House agree to the deletion of the Clause, the Government propose to move to reinstate the original Clause, without the Amendment, on the Report stage, and to treat its passage throughout as a matter of confidence.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: As my right hon. Friend's statement is not debatable, and I do not wish to debate it at all, we must consider the situation again at the next Sitting. But clearly it makes necessary an alteration in the Business for the remaining Sitting Days of this series. Perhaps the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House will inform the House now what is to be the course of Business, not only on the next Sitting Day, but on the fourth Sitting Day?

Dr. Edith Summerskill: Is the Prime Minister aware that if the Government attempt to reverse last night's decision by whipping up their supporters on a subsequent occasion, the women of this country who regard this matter—

Mr. Speaker: This is a matter which should be discussed on the next Sitting Day.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he does not think it possible to distinguish between a deliberative vote of the House on a domestic issue and any lack of confidence by the House in the Government on the general


issues that are involved in the war effort? Would it not seem that hon. Members, who are 100 per cent. with the Prime Minister in pursuing the war—[Interruption]—a matter upon which I should have thought there was no doubt at all—are being precluded from expressing their considered and honest opinion on a domestic matter? Therefore, it would seem that their views are being set aside, and any Debate that may take place in which a vote may possibly be involved, is rendered abortive?

Mr. Pickthorn: On a point of Order. May I ask whether other hon. Members of the House are to be allowed to debate the Government statement?

Mr. Speaker: It was rather a long question No Debate is now in Order.

Mr. Shinwell: I was interrupted while putting my question. I have no desire to be hostile to my right hon. Friend at all, but am only anxious to elicit information, in order to ascertain what is in my right hon. Friend's mind. I ask him to make perfectly clear whether there is any kind of line of demarcation between the issues of the war and a purely domestic issue?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I am afraid I cannot, in any way, alter the statement which I have made. It is really impossible to distinguish between votes on domestic policy and votes on the general policy of the war, in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] His Majesty's Government are entirely in the hands of the House, which has the fullest authority of any legislative assembly in the world, and we trust it will use it with responsibility.

Earl Winterton: Further on the point put by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shin-well), may I ask my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister whether he does not think that it would conduce to a return to good relationships in the House, if instead of having a discussion of this case by question and answer—and I have often protested against Ministers making statements without the opportunity of debate—he would move the Adjournment of the House, and, by agreement between the parties, limit it to one or two hours, in order that those who are anxious to sup-

port him but who sincerely differ from the attitude he has adopted on this occasion, may be able to put their points to him?

The Prime Minister: I was making a statement on the Business of the House, and I think it would be very wrong for the Government to be the first of all Governments to be deprived of the facility of making statements. However, after my statement is finished, the Adjournment of the House will be moved, and if it is thought that a discussion on that Adjournment is likely to lessen the tension which prevails, there will be nothing in the attitude of the Government to prevent it taking place.

Mr. Greenwood: May I put this to my right hon. Friend? Having made his statement as to the course of action to be taken on the next Sitting Day, I submit that it would be most unfortunate if we had a ragged Adjournment Debate today, before Members of the House have had time to consider the situation. As far as my hon. Friends are concerned, I really must take them into consultation before we can define our attitude on what is a very important issue. I hope, therefore, that the House will adjourn when the Leader of the House moves his Motion for the Adjournment, so that there can be proper time for consideration. Nobody wants to destroy the Bill, and nobody wishes to cast any reflections on the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education, as I said last night, or indeed, to challenge the Government as a Government on a narrow issue. That is clear, but I do think that it would be unreasonable if we were to try to debate this to-day. I would like the Leader of the House, purely as a matter of Business, to tell us how we are to spend the rest of the time during the present series of Sittings.

Mr. A. Bevan: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on the way in which the issue is to be discussed on the next Sitting Day? It is obviously impossible for us to discuss this matter now, but the deletion of the Amendment is to be made the subject of a Vote of Confidence in Committee. May I ask how wide the discussion is to be on that matter? I know that you, Sir, will not be in the Chair, but it is going to be very difficult for us to discuss what will


be virtually a Vote of Confidence in the Government on the narrow issue contained in the Amendment itself. Therefore, can we have some guidance on whether the Debate is to be as wide as the importance attached to it by the Government?

Sir Percy Harris: Is it not the fact that the House will be in Committee and you, Mr. Speaker, will not be in charge of the proceedings? We shall be in Committee and following the ordinary procedure of the House dealing with a Bill in Committee when Members always have great latitude.

Mr. Bevan: I am aware that you, Mr. Speaker, cannot give directions to the Chairman of Ways and Means, but will not the Government consider, between now and the next Sitting Day, whether representations cannot be made to the Chairman so as to enable the discussion to be as wide as possible, in view of the very great importance now attached to it by the statement of the Government?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member has slipped into an error. It is the Clause that will be under discussion, and that is wider than the Amendment.

The Prime Minister: As an old Member of the House, I should have thought that it was, obviously, an issue which required the widest latitude that the Chair felt inclined to give, when the Chair would be supported, as it certainly would be, by the general sense of the Committee. With regard to the question asked of me by my right hon. Friend opposite, I entirely share his views that it would be a great pity to have what he called a ragged and stormy Debate to-day. But that is not a matter for us to settle. We have to wipe out the Business to-day and that can only be done by moving the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Maxton: I am of the Opposition but I am not in intimate association with the right hon. Gentlemen on the two Front benches. Surely, we who are in the Opposition and who voted against the Government because it is the routine job of the Opposition to vote against the Government, and who are not unduly distressed by a Government defeat, are entitled to ask the Government and their supporters

to let us know whether some substantial change has taken place during the last 24 hours in the relationships of the various elements that keep the Government in office. Surely, that is a matter not for public discussion across the Floor of the House, but for discussion in the meetings of the various elements that keep the Government in power, and for a subsequent announcement from the Government bench. Will the Prime Minister be in a position on the next Sitting Day to inform those of us who are in opposition what is the position of his Government at the present day, and what are the elements that are continuing to keep them in office?

The Prime Minister: That will undoubtedly be decided in the Division.

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: In view of what the Prime Minister has said about the procedure on the next Sitting Day, I would like to ask him one question. Are the Government going to treat all the rest of the Amendments on the Education Bill in the same way, because, if so, it will be of very little use having a Committee stage?

The Prime Minister: I hesitate to make declarations about the future, until or unless we have been fortified by a Vote of Confidence. But I should not have any hesitation in hazarding the suggestion that every Amendment must be judged on its merits and in the relation which it has to the general policy of the Government.

Mr. Greenwood: May I, still being insistent, ask my right hon. Friend or the Leader of the House, seeing that Business has been disturbed, what it is proposed to do with the remaining Sitting Days of this Series?

Mr. Eden: As already explained, we were not proposing to take any further Business to-day. I understand that there is to be a Royal Commission later to-day.
On the next Sitting Day we shall proceed with the Committee stage of the Education Bill.
On the Fourth Sitting Day it will be necessary to go into Secret Session in order to consider a Motion in relation to the hours of the Sittings of the House. We shall then take the Committee and remaining stages of the Army and Air


Force (Annual) Bill, and, if there is time, we shall begin the Committee stage of the Pensions (Increase) Bill.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a further question arising out of his reply to the hon. Lady the Member for East Islington (Mrs. Cazalet Keir)? Do I understand this to be the position—that, if the right hon. Gentleman secures his Vote of Confidence on the Clause under review, on subsequent occasions the House is permitted, within its discretion, to vote against the Government as long as it is understood that there is not a sufficient majority against the Government? Are we to understand that that is the position—that as long as he gets his Vote of Confidence hon. Members, before voting against the Government, must always ascertain whether it will inflict a defeat on the Government?

The Prime Minister: I cannot attempt to control the activities of hon. Members. I can offer them merely some suggestions as to the consequences which may attend their actions, but certain I am that we cannot go on on the present basis—with a Government which has been defeated after the language which was used from this bench, in spite of the very great task which lies immediately ahead of us—that we could not possibly do. As to the course which individual Members take on every Amendment, on every question, they must consult their consciences and their duty.

Mr. Speaker: The House now seems to be getting very near what has been called "a ragged Debate" and I think it would suit the convenience of the House if I suspended the Sitting until the Royal Commission.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming—

ROYAL ASSENT

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act, 1944.

2. Yorkshire Registries (West Riding) Amendment Act, 1944.
3. Beckett Hospital and Dispensary, Barnsley, Act, 1944.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Drewe.]

EX-POLICE CONSTABLE, IPSWICH

Mr. Gallacher: Some time ago, I directed a question to the Home Secretary about an ex-constable in Ipswich. The question of this ex-constable had been the subject of very considerable correspondence between myself and the Home Office. I was particularly interested in this case because of the long and painful experience I had, covering almost 25 years, with the case of ex-police inspector John Syme. There are many Members, on this side of the House particularly, who will recall what happened in the case of ex-inspector John Syme, and how the grave injustice that was imposed upon that man practically destroyed his life and that of his wife. I do not know when there has been such a painful case of unnecessary suffering enforced upon a man and his wife, and an utterly obdurate attitude upon the part of the Home Office, who refused to do anything to remedy this injustice. Year after year always the most clever evasion, and then, when the time came, after all this unwarranted suffering, after the man's physical condition had almost been destroyed, after he had been in and out of prison under the "cat-and-mouse Act," after all this a new Home Secretary came on the job, consideration had to be given to the question, and it was publicly admitted by the Home Office that an injustice had been done and a certain amount of recompense was made to ex-inspector John Syme. I have had a very close association with ex-inspector John Syme for many years. Even now, he occasionally comes to see me, but he is not allowed into the precincts of this House and I have to meet him outside. A message is sent up to me from outside and I have to meet him there. I have such painful recollections of that case that, when this ex-constable from Ipswich came along and had a talk with me and explained what had happened, I felt that something should be attempted, and every effort should be made, to get the Home


Office to face up to the question before it became another John Syme case, as it probably will.
I do not want to go into all the correspondence that has passed between the Home Office and myself, but I will, in the briefest manner, describe the events. These go back to September, 1941. That is two and a half years that this has been going on. This police constable, Allen Perrins—and the Home Office can take me up on this—was a man of irreproachable character. There was no question of anything against his character; he was a man with a clear record and a good character. He had a motor-cycle. There are two charges made against this man. One of them is that he has stolen a bicycle pump belonging to another constable.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): indicated dissent.

Mr. Gallacher: The second charge is—hon. Members saw the Under-Secretary shaking his head in the negative—that he has been receiving Government petrol. The charge of stealing a bicycle pump may or may not be a serious charge, but the charge of receiving Government petrol is a very serious charge. Before we finish to-day, I want the Under-Secretary to state here in this House—Is this man guilty or not guilty on either or both of these charges?
In connection with the case, Leslie Green, a police inspector of the Borough of Ipswich, made the following statement:
I am a police inspector of this borough. During August, 5941, P.C. 69 Agar reported to me that he had missed a pump from a cycle which he had left at the police station. At about 12.40 p.m. on Tuesday, 29th September, 1941, a communication was made to me by P.C. Agar and P.S. Mann, in consequence of which I saw P.C. 108 Perrins in the charge room. Inspector Harrington and Sergeant Oxborrow were present. I said to him that P.C. Agar had reported that a pump was missing from his cycle which had been left at the station. I said 'This morning, about ten minutes ago, the pump was found on your cycle. Do you wish to say how it came into your possession?' He replied, 'Do you think I took it? Are you trying to pin it on me?' I said, 'This pump was stolen and was found on your cycle. Do you wish to give an explanation of how it got there?

Mr. Peake: From what document is the hon. Member quoting, because I should like to know?

Mr. Gallacher: I am quoting reference number 821/832/31—the statement of Leslie Green, police inspector of the Borough of Ipswich.

Mr. Peake: Where were these statements supposed to have been made? I do not understand what the hon. Member is quoting from. From what document is he quoting?

Mr. Gallacher: The statement that was presumably taken for submission to the chief constable for the consideration of the case. There is a series of statements from all the policemen involved, all of whom made statements that were submitted to the chief constable, who was supposed to decide upon the case. The case goes before the chief constable. Later on, after all the documents have been submitted to the chief constable, Perrins is brought before the chief constable and he deals with him. Inspector Leslie Green's statement goes on:
I said, 'Can you tell me of any mark or markings on this pump?' He replied, 'No I don't think I can.' I said, 'Now that this pump has turned up, do you wish to say anything about a cycle lamp, pump and basket also missing from the station?' He replied, 'No, but to finish the job, I would like you to search my house.' Perrins and Oxborrow went to his home, where he invited us to look round. There was nothing there that would in any way connect him with the disappearance of the articles mentioned. I said to him, 'A report has been received that you are using petrol in your motor-cycle which is the property of the R.A.F.' and he said, 'That is a matter that can be settled by taking a sample of petrol from my motor-cycle. This the sergeant did and we went to the garage and took samples there. Both samples were a pinky colour. Perrins said, 'Yes, I use a petrol economiser and this makes it look pink.' He also produced samples of the economiser to prove it.
Those are the two charges brought against the man. He is brought before the chief constable, who tells him that he is going to be placed before the Watch Committee, where the question of prosecution will be considered. Those were the words the chief constable used" the question of prosecution will be considered." In the meantime, Perrins has intimated that he has bought the petrol from a particular garage, and I have here a document signed by the garage proprietor testifying that, at that period, just before the visits of the officers, Perrins had actually bought petrol at that garage. It is as well to get this on record. This is


reference number 826/832/31 of the 14th October:
Frederick Wade says: 'I am the manager of the Green Ace Garage, Norwich Road, and I reside at 28, Castle Road. About the last week in August, 1941, P.C. Perrins came to the garage and asked me if he could have two gallons of petrol in a can, as he was due for his annual holiday in September, and he would not have enough petrol on his September rations to enable him to go to his home in Chatham, Kent. He gave me two one-gallon unit coupons and I gave him two gallons of petrol in a square five-gallon can.'
And that can corresponds with the can from which the samples were taken, into which, as Perrins said, he had put an economiser. Here is the actual situation. You have a constable, suspended by the chief constable on the ground of stealing a bicycle pump and on the ground that he had been using Government petrol, put on suspension to go before the Watch Committee with a view to prosecution. But what happens? There is a meeting of the Watch Committee, at which Perrins is not present, but the Watch Committee hears a statement from the chief constable, and, apparently, at the Watch Committee meeting, the chief constable turns it into a case of indiscipline because Perrins was asked to sign a misconduct sheet. He refused to sign unless and until he had an opportunity of discussing the matter with a solicitor, and, on the basis of the refusal to sign this misconduct sheet, the chief constable works in the question of indiscipline and gets the Watch Committee to make a decision on these serious charges against a man and against his character. That is the position in which this ex-policeman finds himself. He wrote, as the Secretary of State says, to the Home Secretary.
The Secretary of State, in a letter to me, says that he made an appeal to him and that he set up an inquiry, which found that there had been no injustice and that everything had been carried through in shipshape manner. The Home Secretary does not make it clear that the appeal which Perrins made and which he insists upon, and to which, I contend, he is entitled, is to be taken into open court and tried on these charges. That is all that the man is asking. He is not asking to be put back into the police force or for any decisions to be altered. The man has been charged with theft and it has been spread all over the place. He is a man who had never had a blemish on

his character. These are the charges with which the other police officers were concerned. He invited the police to inspect his home because he was concerned about these charges. They went to his home, and, as the inspector said, they searched it and they found nothing to confirm any suspicions that had been aroused.
There is all this talk in the police force—and if it is talked about in the police force it gets all over the town—that he has been stealing or receiving Government petrol. I cannot understand how the Home Secretary or any of his associates could treat a man in such a manner. I have had a lot of associations with chief constables myself and I have known some very fine men amongst them, one in particular in Glasgow.

Mr. Thorne: Has the hon. Member been in their hands?

Mr. Gallacher: Yes, and they have been in my hands. But on various occasions, in different parts of the country, there has been a tendency for chief constables to be over dictatorial and to allow their sense of power to overcome them. It is the duty of the Home Office to see that every possible protection is given to those who, in particular circumstances, might be subjected to unjust decisions. In this particular case the Home Secretary is making all kinds of evasions. He sends out this or that person to make inquiries. They see the chief constable, the watch committee members, and justices of the peace, but that does not alter the fact that, though they may cleverly avoid the issue, injustice remains injustice. The Home Office cannot more cleverly avoid the issue than it did, for 20 years, the issue in the case of John Syme. Let anyone read the evidence in the Syme case of the protests made by Members on this side of the House, the questions that were put, and yet the injustices always remained. Is this man's life also to be wasted before he is given a measure of justice? Is it expected that the man is going to accept this sort of thing? There are many people who know that he is accused of stealing a bicycle pump, but he is accused also of receiving Government petrol, a very serious offence.
I ask the Under-Secretary whether this man is guilty of resetting Government petrol. If he is guilty, why is he not


taken into court? If he is not guilty of resetting Government petrol, then will the Under-Secretary say at that Box, "This man is not guilty of stealing or resetting Government petrol"? That is all I want from him. I have everything else here from the Home Secretary. I have the whole story about the inquiry and of how satisfied the members of the inquiry were, but the one thing I want and which this man is entitled to get—and there is not a Member of this House who would not agree—is justice. Either he is guilty of resetting petrol or he is not. If he is guilty, then let him be taken into open court. Letter after letter was sent by Perrins to the Home Office, through myself, asking to be taken into court and to be given a chance to clear his character. The Under-Secretary will be wasting my time and the time of the House if he goes through all the stuff that I have here. Will he answer the one question, Did the man steal petrol? If so, prosecute him. If he did not steal it, then clear the character of the man.

Mr. Stokes: I do not feel in a position to put a case to the Home Secretary, but as my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) has raised a matter which concerns my constituency, the House ought to know where I stand. I do not think that I am known in this House as a person who is not forthcoming in airing his views against the Government, nor indeed, in my own constituency, in not taking up what sometimes might be called lost causes, or indeed good causes. As this case has been made widely known, it would be wrong if I did not put the House in possession of facts as I know them. It is now some two years ago since the matter was brought to my attention. I went to great pains. I probably had all the documents that my hon. Friend has got, though I do not know. He did not consult me before bringing it before the House. I did my best to solve the problem. I received, after some months of discussion with the Home Secretary, what I thought was not a satisfactory reply, because I did not get for my constituent what he wanted, and obviously it was not satisfactory. But it appeared to me from the evidence that the Home Secretary had done what he could. I have not the documents by me, so I cannot refresh my memory. If my

hon. Friend had given me all the documents I would have tried to do it. I sent the documents back, though I forget now whether it was at the request of Police Constable Perrins or his solicitors. But I want to make it clear that I had taken up this case. I was not consulted before my hon. Friend raised the matter and I think, as a matter of courtesy, I ought to have been told. I would not like the House to think that I had not attended to this matter, that I had come to listen, sat silent and had not let the House know that the matter had been investigated, and that to the best of my knowledge, and within the law, the man in question had received justice.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) must admit that when Perrins came to me first about this matter more than a year ago, I mentioned it to him.

Mr. Stokes: Now that my hon. Friend reminds me, I do recollect that he mentioned the matter to me. A Member cannot be expected to remember what may have 'been said to him a year ago. Though I do not know the record of my hon. Friend in his own constituency—I am sure it is a very good one—I believe that I have just as good a record in my constituency for looking after my constituents as he has in his constituency.

Mr. Gallacher: If I had thought for a moment that the hon. Member was interested after what occurred a year ago, I certainly would have spoken to him about it. I am sorry.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): No one representing the Home Office will ever complain of any hon. Member raising anything where he thinks that some injustice has been inflicted upon some member of the public. My hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) has raised his case with his usual fervour and enthusiasm, but, as I shall show to the House, he has many of his facts wrong. The most important fact he has wrong is that there was never any charge against this police-constable of stealing Government petrol. No such charge was ever made and the hon. Member is not doing this police-constable any good service by suggesting that such a charge was made. The main charge made against the police-constable, the one on which he was dis-


missed from the police force at the instance of the Watch Committee, was a charge of being in unlawful possession of Government petrol, which, hon. Members will appreciate, is a very different offence.
I ought to thank the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) for his intervention. He took up this case at quite an early stage. It was in October, 1941, that the police-constable was dismissed. The hon. Member for Ipswich took up the case of his constituent with the Home Office early in 1942, and by March, 1942, the correspondence with my hon. Friend had been concluded. It was in November of 1942 that the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) first became interested in this matter. The constitutional position, which hon. Members must understand, is that ever since borough police forces were instituted the disciplinary authority has been the Watch Committee.

Mr. Thorne: They are masonic institutions; you never know what is done in the Watch Committee.

Mr. Peake: Whether hon. Members think that to be a good thing or a bad thing, that is the law under which we operate at the present time. Hon. Members will remember that when we introduced the Police Appeals Bill last year, giving an extended right of appeal to police-constables, there was some protest from representatives of local authorities that, by giving this extended right of appeal in cases of reduction in rank or reduction in pay, we were in some way infringing and harming the status of Watch Committees. Therefore, whether the law be good or bad that the disciplinary authority is the Watch Committee, that is the system which we operate in this country at the present time.

Mr. Logan: Does the hon. Member mean to say that, if a person is suspected of having stolen petrol, the Watch Committee have the right to consider the merits of the case and decide what ought to be a decision of the magistrates' court rather than a case for disciplinary action on the part of the police constable? Has such a man not the right to bring his case before the court?

Mr. Peake: Where a criminal offence has been committed, the disciplinary authority always has the power to institute

criminal proceedings, and there are many cases in which that is done.

Mr. Logan: Has this man been brought before the court?

Mr. Peake: If my hon. Friend will allow me to proceed, he will see exactly what has happened. Police Constable Perrins was charged with being in unlawful possession of Government petrol and he was charged with a disciplinary offence, that is to say, being guilty of conduct likely to bring discredit on the police force. The disciplinary code under which police forces work is to be found in Statutory Rules and Orders, 1920, No. 1484, as subsequently amended. These are regulations made under the Police Act, 1919. Section 4 of that Act deals with the good government of police forces throughout England and Wales, and the disciplinary code lays down what the proper procedure is when a police constable is charged with a disciplinary offence.
Paragraph 13 of the Regulations reads:
Every member of the force against whom a report or complaint suggesting the commission of an offence against discipline is made shall, as soon as possible, be informed in writing of the exact charge against him.
That, of course, was done in this case.
Paragraph 14 states:
The written charge must disclose an offence against discipline as defined in the code of offences against discipline of the Force, with such details of time and place as will leave the accused under no misapprehension as to the offence with which he is charged.
That, also, of course, was done in this case. Paragraph 15 says:
The written charge which shall be entered on a form … (hereinafter referred to as the Misconduct Form) together with the complaint on which the charge is founded, and all reports thereon shall be handed as soon as practicable to the accused who shall initial them to show that he has seen them.
These are the official documents from which the hon. Member was quoting.
Paragraph 16 says:
The accused shall be directed to state in writing upon the Misconduct Form whether he admits or denies the charge, and shall be allowed to give any explanation which he may wish to offer in writing.
After those formalities have been complied with the man appears before the chief officer of police; and these are the powers of the chief officer of police in a borough force:


In the case of a borough police force the decision of the chief officer of police shall, subject to any general direction of the Watch Committee be either (1) to dismiss the case, or (2) to remit the case to the Watch Committee for further hearing, or (3) to award"—
—a punishment as provided in Regulation 21. In this case police-constable Perrins refused to complete the section of the Misconduct Form requiring him to admit or deny the charge. He was ordered to appear before the chief constable, before whom he maintained his refusal either to admit or deny the charge. The chief constable, under the Section I have just read, remitted the case to the Watch Committee, before wham Perrins appeared on 24th October, 1941, assisted by a solicitor. He submitted that the Watch Committee had no jurisdiction to hear the charge, since it amounted to an offence against the criminal law and was a matter far a court. The Committee overruled this submission. The constable and his solicitor then intimated their intention of taking no further part in the proceedings, and withdrew from the hearing. The Watch Committee then proceeded, in accordance with powers which are vested in them by the regulations, to hear the charge in his absence. The charge of stealing a bicycle pump was dismissed. The Watch Committee did not find that charge proved. The second charge—

Mr. Thorne: May I ask the Under-Secretary whether there is no appeal against the decision of a Watch Committee?

Mr. Peake: I am coming to that. The second charge, that of being in unlawful possession of Government petrol, was found proved by the Watch Committee, that is, the properly constituted, democratically elected, disciplinary authority. The Watch Committee thereupon called on police-constable Perrins to resign and, as he failed to do so, he was dismissed. There is an appeal in four cases to the Home Secretary against the findings of police disciplinary authorities. Perrins appealed under the Act of 1927, which provides for a right of appeal by members of police forces who are dismissed or required to resign. Section 1 of that Act says:
A member of a police force who, after the passing of this Act is dismissed, or required to resign as an alternative to dismissal, may

appeal to a Secretary of State in accordance with this Act and the rules made thereunder.…
Section 2 provides:
The Secretary of State, unless it appears to him that the case is of such a nature that it can properly be determined without taking oral evidence, shall appoint one or more persons (one at least of whom shall be a person engaged or experienced in, police administration) to hold an inquiry and report to him
On receiving police-constable Perrins's appeal, the Home Secretary decided that this was a proper case for the holding of an inquiry. He appointed to hold the inquiry Mr. Anthony Hawke, of Counsel, who is, I understand, also a Deputy Chairman of Quarter Sessions, a lawyer of proved integrity and considerable reputation. Mr. Hawke was accompanied by Sir Frank Brooke, one of His Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary. This tribunal, which had the power to compel the attendance of witnesses and to hear evidence on oath, conducted a complete rehearing of the charge. They went over the whole charge again de novo, taking evidence on oath. Whilst I do not wish to trouble the House with the contents of their report, the tribunal found on the facts that had been proved in evidence before them that a breach of discipline had been committed, and that a proper penalty had been imposed. The tribunal explicity added that no miscarriage of justice had occurred. A copy of that report, in accordance with the Police (Appeals) Act, 1927, was duly sent to police-constable Perrins, so that he had the full report before him.

Mr. Gallacher: Did this committee of inquiry decide that Perrins was guilty of resetting petrol? That is important.

Mr. Peake: I think I had better get the precise words of the report, so that there shall be no mistake whatever about this. The tribunal found that this police constable was in unlawful possession of a quantity of Service petrol contrary to Section 1 of the Disciplinary Code, and the words contained in Section I of the Disciplinary Code are:
discreditable conduct, that is to say, acts likely to bring discredit on the reputation of the Force.
That was the charge made before the Watch Committee and which the tribunal of inquiry under Mr. Anthony Hawke found to be proved.

Mr. Mathers: Did the tribunal hear Perrins?

Mr. Peake: Yes. Perrins appeared before the tribunal, and was represented both by a solicitor and by counsel before this tribunal, and his counsel also submitted, as his solicitor had done at the Watch Committee, that there was no jurisdiction to hear this charge, on the ground that a criminal offence was involved and that the case ought to have gone before a court of law.

Mr. Logan: Could the Minister say whether the evidence produced here to-day in regard to the proprietor of the garage having supplied the petrol was before them?

Mr. Peake: I should not like to be definite on that point, but I am pretty certain it was. I am pretty certain all the evidence that Perrins had was available to the tribunal. I do not think my hon. Friend ever suggested that any new evidence had come to light since the tribunal sat. I think it is perfectly clear that the tribunal had all the facts available before them at the time the inquiry was held. I was saying that counsel submitted to the tribunal that there was no jurisdiction to entertain these charges. The tribunal dismissed that plea. They were satisfied that it was competent for the Watch Committee to entertain these charges. Mr. Perrins—

Mr. Benson: On that point, may I ask whether a Watch Committee is competent to try a criminal charge?

Mr. Peake: If I may, I will say one word about that when I have finished this part of my speech. I think the House ought to know that this question of jurisdiction was subsequently taken to the King's Bench Division of the High Court on an application by Perrins, but before I come to that may I say that the Home Secretary duly received the report of the Tribunal, which was adverse to Perrins, and the Home Secretary therefore dismissed Perrins's appeal, acting in accord with the report made to him by the independent tribunal. After the dismissal of his appeal by the Secretary of State, Perrins applied to the Divisional Court of the King's Bench Division for what, I am told, is called a writ of certiorari, and that application was refused. His ground of

appeal there, also, was that the Watch Committee had no jurisdiction, because the charge involved a criminal offence.
Now I will come to the point made by the hon. Member for Chesterfield: Where a criminal offence is involved, should the Watch Committee institute criminal proceedings before proceeding to treat the matter as an offence against discipline? I think the answer to that question is one on which it is difficult to lay down hard-and-fast rules. Clearly, where the offence committed by a police constable is one which would be regarded as a serious offence if committed by any member of the general public, it is perfectly clear that the police disciplinary authority should institute criminal proceedings forthwith. But there are many offences which, if they were committed by a member of the general public, would be regarded as comparatively trivial offences but which, if committed by a police constable are, in his office as a police constable, much more serious matters.

Mr. Logan: May I submit the following question? If one of our unfortunate labourers at the docks in Liverpool were to take a tin of petrol, would it be possible for somebody to say that they have the power vested in them to decide whether this petrol belonged to the dock authorities and have the right vested in them to dismiss the man from his employment, or should the matter not go before a bench of magistrates? I think it is giving a privilege to the police that this charge should have gone before the tribunal to be dealt with.

Mr. Peake: My hon. Friend, like the hon. Member for West Fife, really does draw a red herring across this case when he talks about stealing.

Mr. Gallacher: No, resetting.

Mr. Peake: We cannot here talk about stealing. There is no proof whatever that this constable ever stole this petrol. The only charge against the constable before the Watch Committee, so far as the petrol was concerned, was one of being in unlawful possession.

Mr. Gallacher: When this charge was being made before the Watch Committee, some evidence would be submitted. Was the evidence given under oath?

Mr. Peake: I cannot say in what form the evidence was given before the Watch Committee. Before the independent tribunal all the evidence was given on oath. Hon. Members really do confuse the issue when they introduce the word "stealing."

Mr. Gallacher: Not stealing, resetting.

Mr. Peake: Which I take to be in the hon. Member's Scottish legal phraseology, the equivalent of our "receiving stolen goods, knowing them to have been stolen."

Mr. Logan: The hon. Member for West Fife said it was obtained honestly.

Mr. Peake: It really is not fair either to me or to the police constable to introduce phrases of this sort into the case. The charge was one of unlawful possession. Any Member of this House or of the public may be found to be in unlawful possession of petrol, but that is quite a different thing to saying either that he has stolen it or that he is a receiver of stolen goods. How Perrins came into the possession of this petrol nobody knows, and so far as the criminal law is concerned this was, in fact, a comparatively trivial charge. If such a charge had been made against any member of the general public, I do not believe that any court in the land would have imposed a serious penalty, but, as I was saying in reply to the interjection of the hon. Member for Chesterfield, what may be a trivial offence for a member of the general public may be a very serious offence for a constable or for a member of a police force.

Mr. MaeLaren: Would it be the same in the case of a town clerk?

Mr. Peake: It is hardly for me to pass any judgment to-day upon town clerks. The charge was one of unlawful possession. That charge was proved to the Watch Committee after Perrins had refused either to deny or to admit it in accordance with the prescribed regulations. He appealed to the Secretary of State, who ordered an independent inquiry. That inquiry was held, it satisfied itself that no miscarriage of justice had occurred, it reported to the Home Secretary and the Home Secretary accepted the verdict of that independent tribunal. Subsequently the policeman applied to the High Court,

and his application there was again dismissed on the grounds which I have stated. I do believe that the proper process of law has been followed throughout this case, and that this man has had a perfectly fair investigation into his case at all stages. In conclusion, however, I would emphasise this matter. In these cases of police officers we cannot allow ourselves to be governed by sentiment. Hard cases do arise of men upon whom serious punishments are inflicted for what may seem to some comparatively trivial reasons, but the Home Secretary must always have in mind, and disciplinary police authorities must always have in mind, the governing consideration that the public must have absolute confidence in the integrity of our police, and it would be a very serious thing if that confidence were to be seriously shaken. Therefore, although in individual cases these disciplinary punishments may seem to hon. Members to work hardly, that is not a factor which the Home Secretary or a police authority can take into account. They must have regard for the much wider interests of public policy which are here concerned. This is a case, as I say, where the man has had the fairest possible treatment at all stages, and I am afraid there is nothing more which the Home Secretary can do about it.

Mr. Gallacher: Well, I will bring it up again.

PRESTWICK AERODROME (BROADCAST)

Mr. Sloan: It is my desire to raise the matter of a broadcast entitled "Scottish Airport" which emanated from the B.B.C. on 21st and, I think, 22nd February. I put a Question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Information suggesting that in the interests of security these broadcasts ought not to have been allowed. In his reply, my right hon. Friend did not question the undesirability of broadcasting to the world the locus and activities carried on in this area, but he said that both these broadcasts were scrutinised by the authorities responsible for security in these matters and that they contained only information which had already appeared in the Press in Britain, in Canada and the United States of America. He also gave us the astonishing information that the Germans possess maps of


Scotland, truly an amazing disclosure. I was formerly of the opinion that no one outside Scotland knew where that country was. They might also have picture postcards of Prestwick and Ayr, and therefore the general public should be able to discuss openly our land defences, our air stations and our naval ports. I would like to remind the House—and this is the point which has come under discussion since, both here and elsewhere—that this aerodrome is entirely in my constituency. A supplementary question was put by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) which may have misled hon. Members and the public into the belief that this airport was in his constituency. He indicated that it was one of his brightest jewels, and he assured the right hon. Gentleman that if they were bombed the people in that area could take it.

Mr. MacLaren: He would not be there.

Mr. Sloan: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Information described the statement of the hon. and gallant Member as a sort of Moore's Elegy, and he might have occasion to remember it. I do not think I should have to resort to Old Moore's Almanac to prophesy what will be the reaction of the electors in the burgh of Prestwick the next time my hon. and gallant Friend has occasion to face them. The "News Chronicle" stated that I had been guilty of a breach of gentlemanly conduct—something like the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) was accused of to-day, in raising matters relating to another Member's constituency. The "News Chronicle" evidently has not studied those maps that are in the possession of the Germans and has disclosed an inexcusable ignorance of the geography of Ayrshire.

Mr. MacLaren: It is an English paper.

Mr. Sloan: There is not one of the workshops or the aerodromes, not a single inch of the runways, in the constituency represented by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs, it is entirely within the constituency of South Ayrshire. While it is inexcusable on the part of the "News Chronicle," it is entirely different in the case of the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs. I would not expect him to know. He is an Irishman who lives in London, and, by accident, represents a

Scots constituency and is completely out of touch with the people in that particular area. He is as much a stranger to Prestwick as Prestwick is to him, and he could walk from one end to another without a dog barking at him, because he would be unrecognised. In regard to the broadcast itself, it can be classed as one of the most reckless, senseless and stupid productions that has ever emanated from the B.B.C.

Mr. Kirkwood: That is saying something.

Mr. Sloan: That is saying a lot. It is neither informative nor entertaining. It has become quite fashionable to boost the aerodrome since the B.B.C. broadcast, and an article boosting it appeared in the "Daily Record" on Monday of last week under the caption "Scottish Port of the Argosy of the Skies." The broadcast might easily be termed one of the idiocies of the air. The whole structure of it was designed for the purpose of giving somebody a boost. If it is objectionable to advertise anybody's liver pills over the wireless, it should be equally repugnant to put on show ability which has yet to be proved. The next effect of the broadcast was to cause unnecessary alarm and indignation amongst the surrounding population. The most intimate details were given. I could say, I think without fear of contradiction, that if any poor soul in a public-house bar, under the influence of Johnnie Walker, had said one-tenth of what appeared in that broadcast, or had disclosed half of the information given, he would have found himself in the police court on trial, and I would say rightly so.
To say that because the Germans had maps, or because information has been given in other parts of the world, it is quite legitimate to flaunt public opinion and give the most intimate information which would be of infinite value to the enemy, is an argument which I hope will not be sustained by my hon. Friend. I remember putting down a Question about this airport to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air, and was informed by the Clerk at this Table that I must get the name of the locus out of the Question in the interests of security. We were informed to-day at Question Time that a Secret Session is to be held on the fourth Sitting Day to discuss the future sittings of this House. Does my hon.


Friend suggest that the Germans have no maps to guide them to the location of the House of Commons, or does he think that the people of Ayr and Prestwick are of less importance than the hon. Members who lounge about the benches and smoke-rooms of this establishment?
We must be consistent. If it is helpful to the enemy to discuss openly the days and hours of Sittings of this House it would be equally helpful for them to know the locus of a very important airport. I have here the script of the broadcast, and it would serve the Minister right if I read it from beginning to end. It would be a perfect punishment for allowing it to be broadcast. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about us?"] That is the only reason I do not want to read it all, but to give an indication of what has led to the complaints by the Provost of Prestwick, magistrates, the Town Council and responsible citizens of all classes, I want to give one long quotation. One is staggered with amazement at the idea of giving to the Germans, over the air, such intimate details. Indeed our capacity for amazement is more than exhausted when we see in prominent places the words, "Careless talk costs lives," and "Keep a guard on your tongue." Evidently those words do not apply to the B.B.C. This is the quotation:
It is now more than three years since the first lone venturer touched down at Prestwick. Many more followed in the ensuing months until a year later v0e welcomed the first Lend-Lease aircraft. There was little ceremony on the airfield when the crew disembarked and to-day we celebrate the third anniversary of that significant occasion. Since then aircraft have crossed the Atlantic to Prestwick in a steady and ever-growing stream, and since September, 1941, the British Overseas Airways Corporation has maintained a continuous ferry service to take pilots back to the other side. If you went, into the control tower at this minute you would see aircraft being brought in from the four quarters of the compass—British and American aircraft and so on. If you should stand for a few minutes at the reception desk in our entrance hall you will hear our receptionist welcoming and helping men of every Allied nationality, young Americans who have just brought their operational Fortresses across the Atlantic and who are on their way to bomber stations; Ferry Command pilots who have just flown across Lend-Lease operational aircraft from America; the captain and crews of British Overseas Airways Corporation, passengers and aircrews about to depart from Prestwick who will arrive at their next stop at such a variety of places as Iceland,

Greenland, Labrador, Newfoundland, Canada and New York.
Could indiscretion go further than that? It reminds me of the railway stations where young women broadcast the times of the outgoing and incoming trains. Here is an implied invitation to the Germans that here is a place where a bombing operation would be very helpful to them indeed. The general tone of the broadcast, apart from the security aspect, was extremely foolish. It set out to describe how two young men overcame immense obstacles in establishing the aerodrome. The pioneers of Canada and the explorers of darkest Africa pale into insignificance compared with these young men. After listening to this description of the difficulties which were encountered the population of Prestwick and district were more hostile than the Red Indians were to the early adventurers.
It was said that a local authority sent the police to stop the contractors from working. Was there ever such a fairy tale? Grimm completely fades out in comparison. There is only one authority which has any responsibility in the matter of planning in Ayrshire and that is the Ayrshire County Council, of which I am a member. I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that that body never placed any obstacle whatever in the way. Is there anybody who imagines that the County Council of Ayrshire would be so stupid? If, in the B.B.C., they had had any elementary knowledge of what they were talking about they would know that no local authority was required to ask the police to stop the contractors from going on with their work. I remember a meeting of the Town Planning Committee at which it was said that a member was able to persuade the contractors to go forward. Every assistance has been offered by the County Council in regard to this aerodrome, from its very inception. As a matter of fact, the authorities have done their best, not only to get the airport into operation but to secure it as a terminal when the war is over. Every responsible person I know in the county has applied his mind and attention to this matter, yet this stupid statement is broadcast. One would think that the people of Ayrshire were half "barmy." The County Council closed by-passes and erected roads further East in order to get out of the way. The Water Committee of the County Council went to the extreme limit of


directing water supplies into this area in their anxiety to do their best to secure this terminal airport.
The question of whether "we can take it" is entirely beside the point. In the event of the horrors of war reaching our county I suppose we shall have to take it in the same way as the 51st Division faced up to the fighting they have been called upon to do since the beginning of the war. We have not yet had any figures, but the consensus of opinion is that in this war, as in the last, the percentage of casualties for Scotland will be very much higher than those for any other part of the Empire.

Mr. Kirkwood: It was always so.

Mr. Sloan: In the event of bombing we shall have to take it as others have taken it, but what we do resent is this almost direct advertisement to the Germans—incase they might forget—that there is an airport at Prestwick which might be bombed. We consider that the broadcast was silly in the extreme, and that it was a dangerous practice that ought to be discouraged, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to assure us that such a breach of security will not be allowed to occur again.

The Parliamentary Secretary to die Ministry of Information (Mr. Thurtle): I would like to clear away, at the outset, one or two misapprehensions under which my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan) appears to be labouring. I do not think he realises that the Ministry of Information are under no obligation to pronounce on the merits of a broadcast of this kind—whether it is good or bad, or whether or not it is factually correct. What the Ministry are concerned with is whether or not the giving of the broadcast involved any breach of security, which was the point of a Question which my hon. Friend put to my right hon. Friend the Minister a few weeks ago, when he asked whether action could be taken in view of the breach of security involved, as he alleged. My case to-day is a simple one: it is that no breach of security was involved in this matter at all, and I will give my hon. Friend information in support of that case. If this broadcast had taken place at any time prior to October last it would have been a definite breach of security and it would not have been permitted. It is the duty

of the Commander-in-Chief of the American Forces, every two years, to produce a report, and last October General Marshall produced his bi-annual report on the American Army, in which he made it quite clear that Prestwick was an Atlantic terminal for the landing of aircraft brought from America to this country.

Mr. Mathers: Is this report public?

Mr. Thurtle: Yes, and no doubt it could be obtained by enemy agents. When that fact came out the Air Ministry realised that there was no longer any effective reason for maintaining a security stop on the disclosure of the existence of this terminal. As a consequence, long before this broadcast, a great deal of publicity was given to this terminal in Canada, in America and even in Scotland. For example, in "The Scotsman" of 30th November there was a leading article devoted to the subject of this aerodrome. I will quote a sentence from it which I hope will convince the bon. Member that the fact of its existence and the kind of service it was performing very were very well known to the people of Scotland and must, presumably, have been known to the world at large.
The anniversary dinner given last night by, Scottish Aviation, Limited, exactly three years after the first lease-lend aircraft landed at Prestwick, focuses attention on the busiest and most romantic air terminal in the world. The secret of Prestwick has been well guarded and it was only a few weeks ago, after General Marshall's striking tribute to the airport, that official permission was given to mention it by name in print. As Thomas Johnston, the guest of honour, said, the story of the development of this Scottish airport, when it is told, will provide an uncommonly interesting chapter in the record of Scotland's war achievements.

Sir Patrick Hannoh: Before announcements at this stage are made in America, even at the instance of the American High Command, what exchange of views takes place between this country and the United States Government as to the particular location of an air terminal? Surely there must be some co-ordination of intelligence between the two sides of the Atlantic.

Mr. Thurtle: I do not know whether any communication passed between the two Governments with regard to this terminal but, normally, there are co-ordination and co-operation between them as to


what shall be kept secret and what shall be published. I am explaining what the position was as long ago as November, bearing in mind that the broadcast of which the hon. Member complains did not take place until three months later. I am trying to show, by means of this extract, that there was really, at that time, no secrecy involved and no question of security. That, I gather, is the charge the hon. Member makes against the Ministry of Information—that it permitted a breach of security Regulations to take place. I am here to tell him that no such breach was committed. In the final resort, in all these matters, we are not the arbiters as to what shall be kept secret or not. If any question of security arises, we, naturally, have to repose upon the particular Service involved, the Air Ministry, the Army or the Navy, and in all cases it is the Service involved which decides whether there is a security point or not. In this case the Air Ministry was quite convinced that at that time there was no question of security involved and that, therefore, the broadcast might be permitted. The hon. Member made much play about misstatements of fact and so on. I do not know how much or how little justification there is for that criticism, but the Ministry of Information is not concerned with that aspect of the matter at all. It is concerned only with the security point and, as far as security is concerned, we have a complete answer to the charge.

Sir P. Hannon: Surely the Minister has some better reply to make than that. Is there not some means by which exchange of essential intelligence is secured? Why should some announcement be made to the United States which would be prejudicial to security in this country? What sort of exchange of views takes place between the two sides?

Mr. Thurtle: The Service Departments are in a better position than I am to answer a point of that kind. I should imagine that there is a good deal of co-ordination and co-operation between America and ourselves in regard to questions of security, but mistakes happen in the best regulated families, and it may be that, occasionally, there is some lack of co-ordination, and a fact of this kind slips out when it would not have been desirable for it to slip out. Once a fact gets

out in this way, the horse has escaped and it is no use locking the stable door afterwards.

Sir P. Hannon: We have, in this country, very large numbers of American troops. If any particular question arises as to the security of these troops, surely there is some exchange of views between the United States and ourselves as to how that security can be preserved. There must be some means of intelligence.

Mr. Thurtle: I have said that there is a great deal of co-ordination and cooperation between the two Governments.

Mr. Leslie: Did the Air Ministry see the script before it was broadcast, and, if so, did they make any inquiries as to the accuracy of the statements?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): I am glad to answer the question. The script was carefully "vetted" for security, and competent authorities were consulted. As regards the accuracy of the statements and the emphasis put on various aspects of Prestwick life, it is not for the Air Ministry to offer any opinion.

EDUCATION BILL (QUESTION OF CONFIDENCE)

Mr. A. Bevan: I am glad the Leader of the House has found it convenient to be present and I am grateful to him, for I wish to raise a question at very short notice. I asked the Prime Minister to-day, and the Chair, what would be the limitations imposed on the Debate on the next Sitting Day arising out of the Prime Minister's statement that he proposed to treat as a Vote of Confidence the issue of equal pay for equal work in the teaching profession. The Prime Minister, I am sure unconsciously, misled the House because he gave the impression that the Debate would range over a very wide field, and particularly would take into account the fact that the Government were making it a question of confidence. I was very doubtful in my mind at the time and that is why I raise the matter, because I am certain the Prime Minister, and I am sure the House, would not want to discuss a matter of this gravity in circumstances which would curtail the discussion. I


understand from inquiries I have made that, in fact, when we come to discuss the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," we shall be prevented from discussing any of the issues raised by the Prime Minister in his statement to-day. We shall in fact be confined to the actual purport of the Clause itself. There are circumstances in which the Chairman of Ways and Means can be prevailed upon, at the request of the Committee, to allow the Debate to be fairly wide, but only by way of telescoping a number of issues relevant to the Bill on the discussion "That the Clause stand part." What the Chairman of Ways and Means is prevented from doing is allowing the discussion to travel beyond the Bill itself. Indeed he is confined to the actual terms of the Clause. This is what Erskine May says on the subject:
When a Clause has been amended, the question put from the Chair is 'That this Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,' and no other Amendment can be proposed to a Clause after this question has been proposed from the Chair. Debates upon this Question must be confined to the Clause as amended and must not extend to a discussion of the circumstances under which particular Amendments were made or to a review in detail of the proceedings on the Clause. It has been ruled that, when the Question, 'That this Clause stand part of the Bill' has been proposed from the Chair, it cannot be withdrawn.
I do not mind what steps the Government propose to take, but I suggest that the House itself should be under no misapprehension as to what the position is. It is far better that we should make the matter clear to-day than involve ourselves in an unseemly discussion with the Chairman of Ways and Means later. I have been told that the Government were aware of the narrow limits of the discussion, in which case I am bound to say the Government are tricking the House. If the Government wish to have a discussion on a Vote of Confidence there are endless opportunities, but surely what amounts to sharp practice is to try to get the Vote of Confidence on a narrow issue on which the issues of a Vote of Confidence cannot be raised. The constitutional implications of the Prime Minister's position cannot be discussed although many of us take the view that his decision has actually killed all reconstruction legislation. Although the Government have promised a succession of Bills, it will be impossible to discuss them effectively in Committee,

because every time the House tries to assert its will it will find itself in conflict with the Government as a whole and every detail of the Bill will be treated as a Vote of Censure upon the Government.
Above and beyond the narrow issue of whether we are in favour of equal pay for equal work, the decision of the Prime Minister to make this a matter of confidence raises issues of the widest possible political importance. Nevertheless, he has sought an opportunity which prevents this from being properly examined. What are the Government afraid of? The Prime Minister came down to-day in a spirit of braggadocio. He said, "I am going to take the first adverse vote for three years on a comparatively minor Amendment to a Bill, and I am going to treat it as a Vote of Confidence and the House must understand that, if it votes against the Government, the fate of the Government is involved." That is using the big stick with a vengeance. I do not mind the Government using the big stick. The trouble is that the Government have decided that this issue is to be raised in circumstances in which the Debate will be wholly stultified. There is another issue on which the House ought to be seized.

Mr. MacLaren: Is there not a unique situation here by virtue of the fact that there is a large element of the Labour Party making up the Government and that we are dealing with a joint Coalition Government? It is not the old situation of one party in Government and one party in Opposition.

Mr. Bevan: I am not quarrelling with the desire of the Government to have a Vote of Confidence. That is not my issue. The Government are perfectly entitled to ask for it whenever they like. The issue here is that the Government are asking for a Vote of Confidence on a question on which the Vote of Confidence cannot be discussed. A large number of Members on all sides of the House will want to take advantage of the opportunity to discuss the implications of the Government's position, but the Chair is bound to prevent them doing so. Therefore, the Debate is bound to be merely a repetition of the virtues or otherwise of equal pay for equal work for women teachers.
There is another matter which the House ought to take into account. I


have held the view, and I think that it has been held by hon. Members in many parts of the House, that in these days, in view of the fact that we cannot have a General Election—or it has been decided that a General Election would be inadvisable—the Government are not able to avail themselves of the normal sanction. When the Government come into conflict with the House of Commons in normal times, they decide to appeal to the country against the House of Commons, and the electorate are called in to arbitrate between the Executive and the Commons. That sanction is withheld from us by the circumstances of the day. I have, therefore, taken the view, and it has been taken by other hon. Members, that in these circumstances, as the Government cannot appeal to the country, they should rest themselves upon the House of Commons itself, that the House becomes the electorate for the Government, and that consequently the Government should be guided by what the House thinks. The Prime Minister's decision, however, amounts to this—he not only rejects the authority of the electorate because they cannot be appealed to, but he also rejects the authority of the House of Commons. Therefore, the Government become a cabal. If we dare to vote against the Government on a comparatively unimportant matter about which we may feel very keenly, the Government say, "Oh, no. we will have none of this. You either take it or leave it." What is the effect of that? We might as well abandon all Committee stages and all Bills from now on.

Mr. Bartle Bull: We might as well not have any Government.

Mr. Bevan: We might as well have no House of Commons.

Mr. Bull: And have something like a French Chamber of Deputies instead.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Gentleman's intervention has not its usual pertinence. He is one of those irresponsible people who knows that he will never be elected to the House again and does not care what he says. What I am endeavouring to do is to see whether it is possible for the House to debate the issues which the House wishes to debate, and I am trying to put the argument which the hon. Gentleman

obviously thinks to be unimportant, that after debate we shall be voting on something which we shall not be able to discuss. That is the issue I am asking the House to consider. I should have thought that with a Coalition Government of this sort, the Government would collect the voices of the House from time to time, and if they receive a defeat, if the House expresses itself contrary to the wishes of the Government, the Government should accept that as the decision of the House. Naturally, if the defeats were repeated often, then the Government would have to reconstruct themselves and frame their policies more in accordance with the wishes of the House. But no one can suggest for a moment that one defeat in three years has brought the Government to that extremity. Therefore, I say respectfully to the House that the Government have seized this opportunity to bully the House into acquiescence in whatever they decide to do. That is inconsistent with the dignity of the House of Commons and with good government.
May I say one thing further, because we cannot say this in the forthcoming Debate. None of these arguments can be used in the course of the Debate on the Vote of Confidence. The country will be puzzled. The House of Commons, after a long Debate, has reached a certain decision which the Government refuse to accept. Rightly or wrongly, the country believes that in electing 615 Members to this place it has elected the people who will decide what the laws are to be. There will be hopeless confusion, not only among the civilian population but in the Armed Forces, if the House of Commons decides a principle one day and then reverses it the next because the Government will not accept it. They will say, "Who is governing Great Britain?" This will come badly from a Prime Minister who was put there by the House of Commons and not by the country. The Prime Minister is a creature of the House of Commons. Most Prime Ministers have received mandates from the country at elections, but the present Prime Minister is one whose mandate derives exclusively from the House of Commons.

Sir Patrick Hannan: With the support of the country.

Mr. Bevan: Certainly, because the country supports us. I am not trying to strain a point. I am only putting the


point that the electorate which chose the Prime Minister is the House of Commons. The House is the electorate for this Government. It was not a mandated Government from the country. This is, therefore, the very Government which of all Governments should be prepared to accept the verdict of the House of Commons.

Sir P. Hannon: The election of the Prime Minister was endorsed by the full sentiment of the whole country.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member is estopped from using that argument because there has been no way of deciding what the opinion of the country is. I accept what he says, however, that the majority of the country heartily supported the Prime Minister. All I am saying is that in point of fact the electorate which appointed the Prime Minister was the House of Commons. Therefore, in these special circumstances the Prime Minister should have particular regard to the wishes of his electorate. Instead of that, he bullies them and says that if they dare to exercise their free right of deciding a matter he will say that the whole fate of the Government is involved in it. The Under-Secretary of State for Air goes round the country talking about freedom for British citizens. The only citizen in this country who is not allowed to be free is the Member of Parliament. He is the one person who is not allowed to express his opinion.
The Prime Minister used to-day a most dangerous argument, one which I am afraid will have a lot of consequences for us and for him. He said that he desired this Vote of Confidence because, as we are on the eve of great military operations, it is necessary that the Government should have an authority which is unquestioned. As we are going into the difficult and fateful operations, the inference is that anybody who votes against tthe Government will be jeopardising those operations. What does that mean? Does it mean that we must give 100 per cent. support to the Government on every proposition they bring before the House lest it be said that we are stabbing the Army in the back? Is that the assumption? In other words, must the ordinary processes of Parliament be arrested as a pre-requisite for effective military operations? That is the inference behind the Prime Minister's statement. It is true that we can criticise the Govern-

ment, but if we carry a majority in the Division Lobby against the Government the Prime Minister treats that, not merely as an attack on the Government, but as an unpatriotic attack upon the whole war effort of the country. That, surely, is an argument which we cannot possibly support for a moment. It is surely an argument that the Prime Minister cannot sustain, and I challenge him to sustain it. He will not do so in the forthcoming Debate because he will not speak in it. The reason why he will not speak is that he does not know anything about the issues before the House, and he cannot talk about anything outside those issues. In those circumstances, the House is being put in an entirely false position.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The hon. Gentleman does not know the Prime Minister is not going to speak.

Mr. Bevan: I do not know, but I am prepared to hazard a guess that he is not. If there is one subject about which the Prime Minister knows nothing, it is the subject about which we were speaking yesterday.

Viscountess Astor: That does not stop people speaking in the House of Commons.

Mr. Bevan: It has never stopped the noble Lady. I hope that the Prime Minister will speak, because I am sure that if he does he will so enlarge the Debate that the Chairman will find it difficult to confine it. I say that in these circumstances the House of Commons is being manoeuvred into a false position from which it ought to extricate itself to-day and not leave the whole matter until the Debate itself when it will be confined within the narrow terms of the Standing Orders
Many hon. Members in all parts of the House are very distressed about this situation. I am not distressed. I will be quite frank. I have no confidence in the Government's conduct of the war and have long lost confidence in the Prime Minister. So I am not distressed by the situation, and I shall not find myself embarrassed by voting against the Government.

Sir P. Hannon: I have never known the hon. Gentleman to be embarrassed on any question.

Viscountess Astor: I have.

Mr. Bevan: I have seen the hon. Member embarrassed on more than one occasion, and deservedly so. I shall not find any difficulty about voting against the Government, but there are hon. Members in all parts of the House who will find themselves in an absurd situation, because the issue before the House will not be a Vote of Confidence in the Government but whether they are still in favour of equal pay for men and women teachers. That will be the issue. Having expressed themselves yesterday, they will feel inclined to express themselves in the Debate. I am certain that if the Prime Minister had put a Motion on the Order Paper expressing confidence in the Government, the overwhelmingly majority of the House would have supported him. I am certain of that. If the Government desire to reinforce their authority this is the step they should take. By making a Vote of Confidence and the principle of equal pay for men and women teachers one and the same thing, they produce a false position for Members. They know that in order to vote in favour of a Vote of Confidence in the Government hon. Members have to vote against the principle of equal pay for women.

Mr. Silverman: Although they believe in the principle.

Mr. Bevan: Although they are in favour of it. In order to force the House of Commons to support the Government, the Prime Minister makes liars of Members of Parliament.

Viscountess Astor: Oh, no, he does not.

Mr. Bevan: Logic is not the hon. Lady's strong point.

Viscountess Astor: Never mind.

Mr. Bevan: I say that there is no need for the Government to put the House of Commons in this false position, when there- are so many means available to them of reinforcing their authority. I want to represent in the strongest possible terms that the handling of this matter by the Government has not reflected credit upon the Government, or, indeed, sustained the authority of the House of Commons.

Mr. MacLaren: I want to put in a repetition of what I said by way of interjec-

tion. If the House of Commons were designed at this moment according to its own pattern, of a powerful party in the State controlling the Executive and the less powerful party in opposition, if the Prime Minister of the day in those circumstances should speak as the Prime Minister spoke to-day, on the face of it it would look as if the Prime Minister was adopting a very imperious attitude and one which would be the very negation of the spirit of the House of Commons.
Let us be reasonable here and look at the facts. I am in favour of equal pay, and voted for it yesterday, but I did feel that it was most unfortunate that an Amendment of that kind should have come in as a side issue on a Bill. Here was a major problem being attached to a Bill on education. I think it was most unfortunate, but there it was. I will not debate that aspect of it any further, but I want to deal with the situation which we are discussing now. I say that if the Prime Minister represented one particular party holding a majority in the country, and was speaking in the name of the Executive, and had spoken as he did today, it would have seemed a somewhat imperious attitude, one dead against the whole spirit of the House of Commons. I can afford, being a little removed, on this side of the Gangway, to take a mare abstracted view of the situation, a rather latitudinarian attitude.
What are the facts, as I see them? The Prime Minister does not represent a majority party when he sits there as Prime Minister. He represents a collection, a coalition of all parties dominant in the House of Commons. Let me say in passing that I have lived in the shadow of this building since 1911. I am a bit old here, I have seen the rise and fall of many Parliamentarians here, and I would like to say this about the present Prime Minister: Whatever faults he has, I have always to admit that he is a House of Commons man. I have always recognised that. He has vacillated among the parties politically, and I regret that. Being a House of Commons man, as I know he is, he would, I take it, have consulted the Coalition Government before he made that statement. I cannot believe that he came here and made the statement without collecting the wills and the intentions of his colleagues in the Government. The Labour Party sits in that Government.


We had better be careful here. Did the Labour Party assent to the proposed course on the Education Bill?

Mr. Bevan: The logic of my hon. Friend's speech appears to be that as there are Liberals, Tories and Socialists in the Government who agree upon this Bill, therefore it is incumbent upon every Liberal, Tory and Socialist to dot the i's and cross the t's of all the Measures of the Government that come before the House.

Mr. MacLaren: As I say, I am batting on a rather sticky wicket, but I am going to try my arm. I am only saying that the Prime Minister is in a peculiar position. He is the Prime Minister of a Coalition Government and therefore he must have collected the wills of his colleagues. If I were in his position, or if my hon. Friend were in a similar position, he would consult all who were represented in his Executive and he would assume, would he not, that when he was consulting with those representatives of various political parties he was getting the official opinion of the parties represented in the Executive? I am not putting forward an apologia for the Prime Minister, but I am trying to put the position as I see it, knowing him, and knowing what happened to-day. I want my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), for whom I have the greatest regard as a Parliamentarian and a live Parliamentarian, to have regard to these facts. His own representatives are sitting there, and may have assented to the—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am sure they did. The Prime Minister must have had the collective voice of his Executive before he made his statement. If there is to be an extended discussion along these lines, the logical sequence is that the Labour Party will have to recall from the Government their own representatives. I am putting this forward very seriously. I have as much reverence and regard for the House of Commons as any other Member of it.

Mr. Boothby: It would be like prising a limpet off a rock.

Mr. MacLaren: Whatever may be the opinions of those who used to be in the Government and cannot get back into it now, I am not going to enter into that aspect. I do not want anything to be

done that looks rash. I am only arguing and submitting a case, and I say that the logical sequence is that if the Labour Party take up this attitude they must recall from the Executive—

Mr. Bevan: The Labour Party are not under discussion,

Mr. MacLaren: The Executive must have assented to the Prime Minister's speech.

Mr. Silverman: If I am following the hon. Member's argument, not merely would it be necessary for the Labour Party, or those of us who agree with this point of view, to recall our respresentatives from the Government, but for the hon. and gallant Member for Stafford (Major Thorneycroft) and the two hon. Gentlemen whom I see on the third bench behind the Government, who share the view that we are now expressing and who voted with us yesterday, to recall the Prime Minister.

Mr. MacLaren: Much as I appreciate the impetuosity of youth which is attempting to bring new blood into the Conservative Party, it is a fact that that young party have a representative in the Executive of the day.

Mr. Silverman: Exactly. They are representatives of the Conservative Party, and it is the leader of the Conservative Party who is Prime Minister.

Mr. MacLaren: My hon. Friend knows exactly what I mean. I am quite sure that he will agree with me that the hon. Gentlemen to whom he referred do not carry such weight and power within their own party as he does, and as the Labour Party do within the Cabinet. I cannot resist putting forward the argument for the position as I see it. It seems to be clear that if the Prime Minister had spoken on behalf of a party holding a majority in this House, it would have been strictly unconstitutional for him to say what he said to-day, but he does not speak as a member of one party or as representing one party. He spoke, I take it, as a representative of the collective will of a combined Executive of this House. Again I come back to what my hon. Friend said. It is true that the Prime Minister is a creature of this House. He was created by the House of Commons. True, he had the country behind


him, but to that extent again he is a creature of the House more than ever in the present situation. He can only voice the will of the House of Commons as he knows it in close proximity to him in his Executive. Therefore, I merely present a logical analysis of the situation which now faces us.
The argument so far sustained, with the ability and the brilliance we always associate with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, is one that could carry weight if there were no Coalition, when it would be invincible. There would be no reply to it. If the Prime Minister had been speaking to-day with no Coalition—I do not think he would have done it, knowing him—the argument and the criticism now advanced would have invincible force behind them. If this Debate is to continue along these lines I do hope that those who carry it on will bear in mind the points I have tried to make. If I am wrong, it will not he the first time.
I repeat that I cannot believe the Prime Minister—knowing him as I have for all these years—was so far remiss in his appreciation of the position in the House of Commons that he came and made that statement on his own responsibility. I believe that he came here after having collected the unanimous will and the mind of his Executive. That, to him, means the entire political set-up of the House of Commons as a whole. Therefore, if we are to attack on any other ground, I would rather hear the argument first. The arguments so far sustained are not advanced with a full realisation of the circumstances in which this event is taking place.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I do not want to enter into a wide discussion of the general views involved, for reasons which were frankly stated to-day by those who took part in the discussion at that time, but I think that, at any rate in the earlier part, the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) did raise a point of substance as to the extremely narrow nature of the discussion which will be allowed in the coining Debate, if the course proposed by the Government is to be adopted. The hon. Gentleman read out a passage from Erskine May which I had myself brought into the House of Commons. I shall not read it again, but it does seem to me that

if the Debate is to be confined to the Clause as amended and must not extend to a discussion of the circumstances under which particular Amendments were made, or to a review in detail of the proceedings of the Clause, that discussion will undoubtedly be too narrow to afford any means of discussion at all. I frankly exclude from any consideration at all in any part of my argument the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale that the Government deliberately tried to trick the House of Commons into a narrow discussion of this kind. I do not think that that is the case at all. On the contrary, I understood my right hon. Friend frankly to say that he hoped that the Debate would be somewhat wide in character, and I believe that he intended to give a Debate of that kind.

Mr. A. Bevan: I specifically referred to the Prime Minister's statement in that regard.

Mr. Hogg: I accept what the hon. Member has said. I believe that the exact terms of the Rules of Order could not have been before my right hon. Friend when he made that promise, because, as I see it, some of the supporters of the Government will be put in a seriously embarrassing position, which they do not deserve to be put into, if this course is adopted. I do not for a moment believe if was the original intention of the Government to put them in such a position. As I see it, the situation is this: Some of us have asserted throughout these proceedings our belief in two propositions. We believe, first, that there should be equal pay for men and women teachers in the same job.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): That is where we must stop.

Mr. Hogg: I thought that on the Adjournment, a certain latitude would be allowed.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Not if it is connected with a Clause which is to 'come before the House.

Mr. Hogg: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was saying that that is one proposition in which we believe. The second proposition in which we believe is that in the present stage of the war, it would be a disaster if the Government should fall, and we should be prepared on any Motion of Confidence in the


Government, to support the Government with a view to preventing that disaster, which must override anything, however important, which is part of an Education Bill. That being so, I, personally, deplore that the Government did not put down a Motion of Confidence on the Paper so that we could vote straight "Aye" or "No" whether we had confidence in the Government. They have not, in fact, chosen to do so. They have chosen to put us in the position either to reject the one proposition or the other. I very much deplore that they should have done so. But when we are put in this additional embarrassment, that not only have we to choose between two propositions in both of which we believe, but we are not to be allowed to say why we are doing it, then I do think we are being put in a wholly false position. I do not for a moment suggest that it has been done deliberately. What I suggest to the House is this: In the first place we are entitled at some time to a Ruling on what will be, and will not be, in Order on the next Sitting Day. In the second place, if as I apprehend from the passage in Erskine May to which reference has been made, that is perfectly plain, I do ask the Government out of the goodness of their heart to treat their supporters—

Viscountess Astor: I think this is so very important that we should have the attention of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Hogg: I was hoping that the Prime Minister was in process of yielding to my persuasion. I suggest, now that it is feared that the Rules of Order are narrowly limited, the Government might give a wider opportunity for discussion. Otherwise, it seems to me, the Debate will be meaningless.

Mr. McGovern: I can say, as one who travelled from Scotland during the night and unfortunately was not in the Division Lobby, that if I had been here, I would have added one more to the majority that appeared in the Division list. It appears to me that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) has made out a splendid case for some more definite Motion being placed on the Order Paper, or some better opportunity given than is to be afforded on the next Sitting Day to discuss the Clause for the benefit of those who desire to support the Government and at the same time are

in favour of equal pay for equal work in connection with the Education Bill. In passing may I say I believe that a tremendous amount of the trouble that has been developing in this House has been due from the outset to the fact that the Prime Minister, when the Labour Party decided to join the Government, refused to accept as the Opposition in this House, no matter how small or how ridiculous, the two or three Members in this House who were anti-war.
Since that time, when the Government decided to set up a sort of "stooge" Opposition in this House, and a Party which had people in the Government and people out of the Government, they have themselves contributed in a large measure to the ensuing difficulties. Let me say further, in connection with the decision made yesterday, that it is very far-reaching. We are told that the Prime Minister is a very good House of Commons man. I, for one, refuse to accept that. I will accept the definition in this way, that the Prime Minister is a masterly House of Commons man when he is using the House of Commons to his own advantage. But when other people have a mind, and express that mind and that will, then he becomes riot the tolerant, broad-minded House of Commons man but the intolerant individual who desires to see his own will sustained in the Lobbies of this House, and refuses to accept any opposition in the House. Further, he did not come here to-day as a House of Commons man who might have been moulded. He is not what he described Mr. Ramsay Macdonald as being, "this boneless wonder." He came down to this House with a determination to wield the big stick against the Members of this House.
Let me say two things to him. He thinks, as a large number of Members in power politics think, that the biggest weapon they have is to say, "We will go to the country. There will be a General Election"—a threat to take away the bread and butter of Members, or compel them to face the wrath of their constituents in a General Election. He cannot have a General Election at this moment no matter how desirable it might be. He cannot risk a General Election just at the time when he is embarking on one of his greatest military adventures. Secondly, is he so sure that the country would back


him in an issue of this kind? Is he aware that the idea of every elector who votes for a Member of Parliament is that he or she is sending a Member of Parliament to express the general will on the Floor of the House, and to sustain it in the Lobbies of the House by their votes, to record that vote whether it is for or against a Government, and that the Government are compelled to accept that decision, if they are democratically-minded? A large number of people have been led to believe that there is going to be some great new order after this war. They see that every time any Member goes in the Lobby in favour of old age pensions, or equal pay, a dictatorial authority is used to the full to prevent the popular will from being expressed. What will be the wrath of millions of women in this country, who saw in that decision yesterday a desired change in the outlook of the dominant male Governments of the past on the question of equal pay for equal work, when no sooner is it recorded in a Vote in the House of Commons than the Prime Minister comes down and threatens to turn the House of Commons out? I do not think that would be accepted as a very desirable thing in this country. Let me say further that when the people of this country, no matter what—

Viscountess Astor: Regarding what the hon. Member said about a million women I agree that they all want this, but I do not agree that a million women in the country at this moment would want us to vote against the Government and put the Prime Minister out.

Mr. McGovern: The issues are, to the country, very definite. I have said, time and again, although it is against my own point of view, that the overwhelming majority of the people of this country desired the Prime Minister. They backed the Government and the war. I said that and I say it still, though it is unfortunate from my point of view. But they differentiate between a war and a programme of social reform. They say, "Give us evidence now that you intend to have a brave new world. We will judge you on your actions now," and to claim that all these things must be postponed until after the war, is like trying to delude the mass of the population of this country, who have been so often deluded by previous Governments of various complexions,

into an acceptance of war, only to find when the war is finished that the brave new world will go the way of the homes for heroes, of the 1918 period. They want to see the evidence. On this issue I am convinced, from a realistic point of view, that the Government are in a bad way, and they are doing a disservice to the cause which they are continually expounding, the cause of democracy. I do not accept it that the Prime Minister believes that the House of Commons is the master and he is the servant. He says, "I am only the servant of the House. You are the masters of the situation." But no sooner do they decide to assert their own mind on any issue, than the big stick is brought out and the threat is held out in real Schickelgruber fashion. I object to this.
I say further that the Government today are in revolt against the House of Commons. That is the issue. The House of Commons have been invited to make a decision. They say, "We believe in equal pay." Immediately, it is said, "The Clause goes out of the Bill and we demand a Vote of Confidence." It is the old trick. I ask the Prime Minister in particular, if that stick is used, what is the use of the House of Commons? What is the use of the House of Commons representing the claims of the people in their area for houses, old age pensions, equal pay and service allowances, if a threat is used every time they manifest their desires in this House? In this period of Coalition Government unfortunately, as I said—and people who are sitting here have encouraged it—there has been recognised a "stooge" Opposition. If the thing you have created becomes too powerful for you, then you are the people responsible. It is not only the Labour Party who are concerned. We have the young Conservative element who take the Prime Minister at his word and believe he means to have a brave new world. They are desirous of "cashing in," in the country, on the feeling growing up, even among Tories, that some changes should take place. They join hands with the Labour Party, and the diehards of all parties resent that intrusion into the field of social reform.
My hon. Friends and I, as the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) said, would naturally vote against the Government. We are opposed to the Govern-


ment; we are opposed to the war; but the question of social reform for the masses is dominant. On this issue, we find one more evidence of the Prime Minister's desire to get his will. He is going to narrow the discussion. He will say all he wants to say in every discussion in this House by making statements. He will give his prejudiced views; he will express his intolerant mind. Other Members are to be shackled, and prevented from saying the things that they ought to be allowed to say if the House of Commons is to operate in a proper manner. There ought to be some better opportunity of discussing this issue than on the narrow question of the Education Bill. Members should not be compelled to do violence to their consciences by supporting the Government 'and turning down proposals in which they believe. Therefore, I hope the Government will think twice, and three times, about it, and give the House of Commons a proper opportunity of airing its views, voicing its grievances, and showing where it really stands on policies of social reform.

Mr. Boothby: I would like to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) that I have not the slightest desire for office. He can rest his mind on that point.

Mr. MacLaren: I should not have been so crude on that point.

Mr. Boothby: I tried very hard to follow the point that my hon. Friend was trying to make, and I found it very difficult to do so; or, if I did succeed in following him, I am sure that he did not succeed in making his point. I cannot see why any Government should have a greater right to impose its will on the Legislature merely by reason of the fact that it is a coalition. A coalition Government no more represents the views, collective or individual, of the Members of the House of Commons on a particular issue of this kind than a party Government, commanding a majority in this House, does. On the contrary, I think there are occasions when a party Government might well have the right to drive an issue through as a matter of confidence against a well-organised Opposition; and that a coalition Government has more, rather than less, reason to be very gentle —I will not say deferential—in its treat-

ment of the Legislature. I do not agree that a party Government can do things which a coalition Government cannot.
I did not vote on this issue, because, I am thankful to say, this Bill does not apply to Scotland; but I think that the issue between the Government and this House has not been clearly defined. It was not defined yesterday; I venture to say respectfully that it was not defined earlier to-day; and it has not been defined now. It might have been argued yesterday that this was a matter of principle, that it raised an issue extending far beyond the confines of the Education Bill. It might have been argued that this raised the whole question of equal pay for men and women, not only as regards teachers but in the Civil Service, and, indeed, in industry. The Government might have said that they could not take a decision of that importance on the Education Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "They did so."] No, I read the Debate very carefully, and it was not so said by the Leader of the House. If he had said, "We will consider the whole issue, and take a decision later on, but we cannot allow such a decision to be made on this Bill, and therefore this vote is a matter of confidence," I believe that there would not have been a division. But nothing of this was made plain to the Committee. I was not present, but I read HANSARD very carefully.

Captain Prescott: I was present, and I listened with very great care to what the Minister said; and I read the OFFICIAL REPORT carefully to-day. My impression is that the Minister said that this was not a matter which could be confined to teachers alone, and that it had to be considered in its broad aspects, as relating to civil servants and others.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We are very near to discussing yesterday's Debate, which is out of Order now.

Mr. Boothby: I will not continue on that line. I will only say that I think that the statement of the Prime Minister this morning might well lead the public, who only just skim these things, to think that quite a number of Members who voted yesterday in favour of equal pay for men and women were not quite so keen on bringing the war to a victorious conclusion as were other Members; that,


somehow, they were against the Government, and against the vigorous prosecution of the war. The ordinary member of the public, reading the newspapers, might get that impression; and I think that is an impression which ought to be corrected. I am sure that the Prime Minister did not mean to give that impression, and that it is not, in fact, correct.
There is a further rather serious issue, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). How far does this decision go; how far is it going to apply in future? Are all Amendments, or a wide number of Amendments, or how many Amendments to future Bills, going to be made questions of confidence? This is a matter about which the House of Commons has every right to be perturbed. If the Government are to come down to the House and say, "You can argue about this Amendment as much as you like, you can amuse yourselves as much as you like by talking, but if you vote for it we are not going to accept your decision," a serious situation will arise. Reconstruction would then come to an end for the time being, and it would be a complete waste of time for Members to come to committees of this House at all.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burslem said that it made all the difference that the Labour Party were in the Government, and that the Labour Party had acquiesced in this decision of the Government and in the statement of the Prime Minister. I dare say that that is true; but may I put in a word for the Tory Party? There are quite a number of Conservative Members of this House who are very keen on social reform. I am not a violent party man myself; but some of them are. I cannot exclude the possibility that Labour Members may one day say, "All right, we have had a good time in the Government, but now we are going to leave. We might have done a great deal more had it not been for the Tories, who held up things all the time. Now, if you will only give us the chance, we will show you what social reform can be."

Mr. George Griffiths: What will the Tories say?

Mr. Boothby: We shall no doubt be very sad. We are all in this business; and if the argument of the hon. Member for Burslem is true, and the Government as a whole accept responsibility, hon. Members on that side must accept responsibility along with us for what may be done. If the Government were to come down to this House and say that they could not conduct the critical operations now impending without suspending the ordinary activities of the House on reconstruction, and were to ask us to give them the necessary authority, I should vote for the Government, as an emergency measure, on that issue; but I think it would be a dangerous course to adopt. I ask now what I asked at the beginning of my speech. I say that we ought to know what is the real issue between the Government and the Legislature. It ought to be clearly defined, and we ought to know precisely where the Government stands.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): What does the hon. Member mean by "between the Government and the Legislature"?

Mr. Boothby: Between the Government and the House of Commons.

The Prime Minister: The Government are the expression of the House of Commons.

Sir Percy Harris: Yesterday I had no idea that a big storm was going to blow up. As a result, I was not in my accustomed place. To-day I had no idea that this Debate was going to take place on the Adjournment. I understood that the matter was to be discussed on a Motion which was to be moved by the Prime Minister. There are two things that I am clear about. One is that I want to support the Prime Minister in the prosecution of the war, and to do nothing to hinder or handicap him in that great purpose. The other thing is that I want the Education Bill to become an Act of Parliament in its present form. Therefore, I am restrained from moving Amendments and from making many speeches. I believe that that is the feeling of the majority of this House.
I do not want Members to be under any misunderstanding; I have voted twice against the Government in Committee on the Education Bill. I took the line that, the Bill being in Committee, we, as Mem-


bers, have a right to do our part in improving the Bill and licking it into shape. I took part in the Debates on the Education Bill of 1936, when the Bill went upstairs. I do not think it was possible to send the present Education Bill upstairs to a Standing Committee; but, if such a thing had been done, an Amendment of this kind might have been carried against the Government, and it would have passed as a comparatively small, unimportant matter. I have seen such decisions reconsidered on the Report stage, when the Bill came back to the House; and if the Government decided to make it a main issue we were then able to alter the decision that we had reached in Committee. I want to be quite fair to the Minister; I have found him a most conciliatory Minister.

Mr. Bevan: May I respectfully suggest that the issue before the House is whether the course which the Government are taking provides an appropriate vehicle for an expression of confidence?

Sir P. Harris: I was not present, and I did not hear the tone and the temper of the Debate, which is, of course, a vital matter; but I have read the Debate, and I got the impression that the Minister considered, in the light of his knowledge of the working of the Burnham Scale, that if that Clause had been so amended he could not operate the Bill, and that therefore he could not be responsible. He chose, as a Minister, to make the vote one of confidence. That has raised the issue. I am sorry that he has taken the attitude which he has taken. I think that that could have been avoided if the question of equal pay for equal work had been separated from this Bill, because it is a large principle. As I understand, the Leader of the House was not unwilling to do that, to give an opportunity to discuss the matter.

The Prime Minister: The procedure of the House of Commons enables all these broad matters to be put to the test on numerous opportunities throughout the Session, even without asking for a special day, but the demand for a special day, made by sufficient backing, is one that every Government must consider. I must be understood to be making no promise of any kind at a time when we consider our actions are in dispute.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: On a point of Order. Is it not perfectly correct that the President of the Board of Education stated that he had approached the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this question?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of Order. I think I must remind the House that we should keep to the point.

Sir P. Harris: All I am pleading for is that it would be a tragedy at this stage of the war if we were, on an issue that is not vital to the Education Bill, on the one hand, to lose this great Education Bill, and the Minister with it, and, on the other, to embarrass the Government and weaken their authority, not only in this country but in the world. For that reason, I think we must make it clear that this issue, coming up suddenly, took part of the House by surprise. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am not prepared to risk losing the Education Bill and embarrassing the Government on an issue which may very well be discussed apart from this Bill.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I have never heard a speech quite like that to which we have just listened. I have before me here the list of those whose votes were used against the Government in other Divisions in which the right hon. Baronet took part, and in which I took part for the Government. Where do we draw the line? I rise to put a very simple question, and we are very glad to have the courtesy of the Prime Minister's presence in the House at this time. We have now had five Divisions on the Education Bill. There has been cross-voting, sometimes one side and sometimes the other, and on one occasion I was reviled by my hon. Friends on these benches.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We really cannot go into that matter.

Mr. Lindsay: Are we, then, to be asked on the next Sitting Day to reverse a decision which was not taken lightly? Most of us had complete knowledge that a Division was pending. Some of my hon. Friends warned the President, and they have made. a life study of this question. Are we at the next Sitting to vote against a deliberate decision on a view which some of us have held for over 20 years? We want to go on and get the Bill. Is it


not possible now, at this stage, for my right hon. Friend to put down a separate Vote of Confidence in the Government? I should wholeheartedly vote for the Government and we should all know where we were. We have come to a stage in the Bill at which, in the next three or four days, it is possible that other decisions by voting may have to be taken. Are those Members who may, according to their consciences, vote for or against the Catholic Clause to have a free vote or on the financial issue as between Whitehall and the local authorities? It is conceivable that there may he three fairly narrow votes on big issues on which the President of the Board has tried for many years to get outside agreement. Are we to have a repetition of this procedure? It would be absurd, and would reduce Committee stages to a farce. We want to see this Bill through, and we want to make it a great Bill, and the only way we can do that is by constructive criticism as we go through the Measure. I plead with my right hon. Friend—because there is a great volume of opinion outside which wants to see this Bill on the Statute Book—and ask him not to treat, as matters of "confidence," primary and in many cases secondary principles on this Bill, because I believe that the overwhelming majority of us here believe that these issues have nothing to do with the conduct of military operations outside. We believe in the Government as a whole and in the Prime Minister. If we can have that issue redefined for us to-day, many hon. Members will feel that they can come to an honest decision on the next Sitting Day. I beg the Prime Minister to reconsider the statement he made earlier to-day.

Mr. Shinwell: The suggestion was made earlier that we should try to avoid a ragged Debate. In some respects we have had it. It does appear to me that we have been, in large measure, discussing a Motion of Confidence in the Government, for which this is not the appropriate occasion. I have listened to the Debate from the time the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) spoke and I have heard every speech. It appears to me that we have discussed, in large measure, a Vote of Confidence in the Government—[Interruption.] I am just as capable of understanding speeches as my hon. Friend or any other hon. Mem-

ber, and I have a much longer experience than he has. Be that as it may, I say that we have, in large measure, been discussing a Vote of Confidence in the Government and that this is not the proper occasion. That is my main point. If we are, at any time, to discuss a Motion of Confidence in the Government, let it be on a proper occasion and on a Motion stated by the Government. That, surely, is the proper thing to do. Apparently, we are not to do anything of the sort. We are going to elevate a matter of, shall I say, minor importance alongside the great issues of the war, into a Motion of Confidence. That, I believe, is a mistake. May I say, in passing, that I hear behind me observations of agreement and disagreement, but what I am saying I say because I believe it, whether hon. Members agree with me or not. It is quite unnecessary for hon. Members to interject; I know what I am talking about, and I shall say what I please.
One thing I am going to say is this—and this I certainly mean. Whatever our views may be about the Prime Minister and his policy, everybody will agree that his position excites no envy in the breast of any hon. Member. How can it? We have differed from the Prime Minister, I as much as others—differed on policy, on matters of strategy, perhaps because we knew nothing about the matter; but, in the position which the right hon. Gentleman occupies, with the gigantic responsibilities that lay so heavily upon his shoulders, everybody realises that surely these are matters which the Prime Minister is constitutionally and morally entitled, if he cares to, to elevate into a Motion of Confidence. Whether it is wise to do so is another matter. I do not deny the right; what I question is its wisdom. This is as I see the matter: Yesterday a decision was taken by a vote of the House with the Whips put on. It was no free vote of the House. It was a democratic vote inhibited by the activities of the Whips, and yet, by a very narrow majority, the House decided against the Government. On the next Sitting Day we shall be asked to rescind that decision, for that is what it amounts to. Even in asking us to rescind that decision the discussion will be limited, as my right hon. Friend will agree. How much more limited will the discussion be on a question of confidence.
I can understand my right hon. Friend being very anxious at this stage to gain


the full support of the House, so that he can confront not merely the people of this country but the whole world with that measure of confidence. There never was a time when it was more necessary that he should have that, with the gigantic tasks that confront us—not merely the Prime Minister, but all of us. It is not merely a matter for the Prime Minister—the question of these striking events that are impending. He bears the major responsibility, and his Government, but they affect us all and none of us can be unconcerned. I can understand the Prime Minister and the Government being anxious to enlist the confidence of the House. If that is the desire of the Prime Minister—and we appreciate it and the motives that inspire him—would it not be better to come to the House on the first Sitting Day of the next series with a Motion of Confidence on the major issue that the House is behind the Government in the prosecution of the war? That is what the Prime Minister wants. What would it matter to the world if they were made aware that the Government have gained a measure of confidence on a minor issue, of whether there should be equal pay for equal work? It will be misunderstood, if, indeed, it is understood at all, but, to gain a Vote of Confidence on the wider issue of the questions of the war will amount to something and impress the people not only of this country but of the world.
I want to suggest to the Prime Minister, with the very greatest respect and in the hope that he will introduce second thoughts into the subject, that he will consider a Motion of Confidence of the kind indicated at a very early date, and that what we ought to do on the next Sitting Day is to disregard the proceedings of yesterday. [Interruption.] Allow me, this is a very serious matter. Equally, at a very early date before we return on the Report stage to the proceedings of yesterday, we might have a general Debate on the principle of equal pay for equal work. That is the way out of the difficulty. If, on the next Sitting Day, we have a Division again, it will be misunderstood and it cannot, in the circumstances, be regarded as other than a question of confidence.
The Government may feel that they are smarting under a defeat. But it is not a major defeat. Therefore, I make three propositions to the right hon. Gentleman.

One is that we do not discuss the issue on the next Sitting Day at all and that we leave it over until the Report stage of the proceedings on the Education Bill, and that, preceding that, we have a general Debate on the principle of equal pay for equal work, which will guide our conduct and our decision when we come to the question of equal pay for equal work on education. It is much better to do it when we have all the wider issues and repercussions in mind. My right hon. Friend, having now set his mind to the task on the question of confidence, should come before us very soon now—on the First Sitting Day of the next series of Sittings at the latest—and ask for a Vote of Confidence on a wide issue. That would appear to be a wide issue.
If the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to do that he leaves hon. Members in a very distressed state of mind. There is an impasse from which we cannot escape. What will be the position on the next Sitting Day? Hon. Members on this side of the House are pledged to support equal pay for equal work, and there are some hon. Members opposite equally situated. Moreover, they came to a decision yesterday and voted, and so did some hon. Members opposite. If they rescind that decision on the next Sitting Day they will rescind it not because they believe that it is right to rescind it, but because they have been asked to do so by the Prime Minister in order to provide him with a measure of confidence. I am not suggesting that the Prime Minister is dishonest in this regard, not for a moment, but it is creating a measure which is dishonest in the minds of hon. Members if they act in that fashion. How can they avoid it? What is to be the position of hon. Members on this side if it is said, "You abandoned your principles in order not to upset the Government?" The concern of the Prime Minister is for a measure of confidence from this House and he will get his measure of confidence, but let him get it on an issue that everybody understands and where there is no misunderstanding or confusion likely to arise; where there is a plain issue not to be fogged' y considerations such as have been apparent to every hon. Member in the course of these proceedings.
There has been in the course of this sketchy Debate to-day a number of criticisms of Government policy gener-


ally. I subscribe to a lot of them in the domestic sphere. Few are satisfied with what has been done on reconstruction. I can place myself in the perhaps peculiar and happy position about which, apparently, some hon. Members cannot satisfy themselves, namely, that I can divide the war effort from the domestic field. If we were to be opposed to everything that the Government were doing in the domestic sphere, naturally that would concern the war effort, but I cannot see how some minor issue, like increasing the pay for the men in the Forces, allowances for dependants or equal pay for equal work, or housing, affects the war effort. Therefore, I can create the line of demarcation for myself. I am 100 per cent. with the right hon. Gentleman and the Government in prosecuting the war successfully and vigorously—they cannot prosecute it vigorously enough for me—as indeed, we all are, every one of us.

Mr. Kirkwood: The Prime Minister talks about 200 per cent.

Mr. Shinwell: I will give the right hon. Gentleman his additional 100 per cent. if he wants it; but I should think that he prefers other and more useful weapons than percentages. I can subscribe to his prosecuting the war as vigorously and ruthlessly as he likes, but I am doubtful whether I can subscribe to more than 50 per cent. of his social and domestic policy. Therefore, why not leave some of us with that line of demarcation?
How can that affect the Government? If occasionally we vote against the Government, what harm can it do so far as military strategy is concerned? It can do no harm. I put it to the Prime Minister: Get your Vote of Confidence and then allow hon. Members to have their heads occasionally, allow them to get it off their chests and go into the Division Lobby. Let them get rid of inhibitions. It is not going to be harmful to my right hon. Friend, it is going to be beneficial, and however dubious I may be about the domestic policy of my right hon. Friend and the Government—I do not want to go fully into that now—we are anxious, more anxious than we can say, to afford support to him in the coming situation which we know is full of trials and ordeals

and sacrifices. Nobody can imagine that those of us who have occasionally criticised the Prime Minister and who may criticise him in future in the domestic field, and even in relation to war policy, want to put any obstacle in his way. It is fantastic. We are anxious to help the Prime Minister. Will our right hon. Friend help us? I am satisfied, although hon. Members may not agree with all that I have said, that as regards the main substance of my proposals there is general agreement in the House of Commons, and I hope that my right hon. Friend, being a good House of Commons man, will respond to the opinion of hon. Members.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): The hon. Gentleman in the early part of his observations said that this Debate had been somewhat ragged, and I am prepared to agree with him

Mr. Shinwell: Not altogether.

Mr. Eden: I am prepared to agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite in that respect, but I would not say that of the speech which he has just delivered. I thought it might be for the convenience of the House if I were to set out at once in a very few sentences the position of the Government after that speech. I regret that we cannot accept any one of the proposals which the hon. Gentleman has just made, and I will briefly state why. Let me first reply to the observations of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) about the nature of the pronouncement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister earlier to-day. The observations which he made were made as head of the Government after, of course, consultation with all his colleagues. That was the nature of the observations. Where I thought that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris)—though, of course, he was not here—went wrong in their assessment of the situation was in their repeating from time to time that the decision yesterday was on a minor matter. It was not anything of the kind. Nobody who listened to the speeches of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education could be under that illusion. I myself heard the last observations that he made—in fact, as sometimes happens on this bench, we consulted each


other before he made them—and I do not think a Minister could have been fairer or franker with the Committee in putting to them the gravity of the vote which they were about to take. Therefore I say the Government cannot accept that this is a minor matter. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale used the words "minor matter" several times. Sometimes he forgets what he says.

Mr. Bevan: HANSARD will confirm what I said. I said "a minor matter in relation to other matters."

Mr. Eden: I have heard the hon. Member refer to HANSARD before and I have found him wrong in HANSARD before now, and I expect I shall find it again. Assertions of that kind lead nowhere. What I say is that the hon. Gentleman, and other speakers in this Debate, have based their case on saying that the decision yesterday was on a minor matter. I say that after the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Government took exactly the opposite view and they have taken the opposite view now.

Mr. Sloan: Do not turn a minor matter into a major matter.

Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He comes to us and says the Government should take this defeat, and yet we are told in the same breath "You have no right to talk about going to the country. That is a most disgraceful thing to do at a time like this."

Mr. MacGovern: Who said that?

Mr. Eden: We were told in another speech that we ought not to speak of going to the country. But I say that no Government would be prepared to carry on under such conditions now. The hon. Gentleman said, "What is the issue?" That is a perfectly fair question. The issue is the fact that the Government have been defeated and that, until we know where we are as a result of that defeat in the House, as we shall know at the end of the forthcoming Debate, we cannot make any pronouncement about our future attitude on any subject. My right hon. Friend said very reasonably to me, "Why cannot you say that, later on, there will be a Debate on this wide issue which has been raised on one particular Bill?" No such request was made to

me in the course of yesterday, but I would not for a moment, I could not for a moment, and the Government could not agree to such a suggestion at this present juncture when we have been defeated on this particular issue. To do that would be for us to try to compromise our own position, to try to get out of our own defeat by an offer of that kind. That we could not do for one single instant.
Let me sum up the position as we see it. The hon. Gentleman opposite said just now that he doubted the wisdom of the course which we are taking in putting the issue in this way. Well, of course he is absolutely entitled to that opinion. It is a matter of judgment. There is no dispute that the Government have the right. Whether they should do it in this way, or in some other way, is a matter of judgment. Well, Sir, we have considered and we have taken our decision, and we do not propose to vary that decision. As regards the scope of the discussion, that will not, of course, be for us but for the Chair. I am fully aware of the Rules of Order of Government procedure but I wish to leave just this for consideration in the mind of the House. When the hon. Gentleman says that the Government ought to try to separate defeat on some domestic affair from a big international military issue, it is not as easy as all that for the Government. Has the hon. Gentleman been listening to what the German wireless has been saying this last few hours? It is no good treating that—[Interruption]—At the present time with the operations that are impending, the duty of the Government, so we consider it, is to take the first possible opportunity to test whether they have the confidence of the House, and if they have the confidence of the House to show by what majority that confidence is held, and to do that at the first opportunity. In the forthcoming Debate we propose to do it within the scope laid down by you, Sir, from the Chair.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: Despite the remarks of my right hon. Friend I still feel, as a great number of hon. Members of this House must feel, very unhappy indeed about this issue. We have heard a great deal in this Debate about this difference between the Legislature and the Executive, but nobody, as far as I know, has talked about the effect of this dispute on public opinion


outside. I cannot help thinking that as the issue is placed before the country at the present time, public opinion outside this House is almost bound to misunderstand it. Here we have a House which we are told time after time is out of date. Most of its Members were elected a long time ago, and, owing to the war, we have not had a General Election. Nevertheless, there has been a very great revolution in the ideas in the country, and these ideas have come through to us. A large number of people, owing partly to the impressive service given by women in the war, have come to the conclusion that this discrepancy between the payment of men and women is out of date. The only opportunity we have had was in the Debate on the Education Bill. Those of us who believe sincerely that we should get rid of this discrepancy voted on the Education Bill and then were told that having voted on an Amendment to the Education Bill we were endangering the whole war effort.
There is not one Member of this House who forgets the services rendered to this country by the Prime Minister, but I cannot see how those of us who sincerely wish to see the House of Commons respected are to go to our constituencies and argue that because the Government choose to make the vote on this Amendment to the Education Bill a matter of confidence we are to vote against our sincere convictions. I can understand the difficulties the Government are in and that the President of the Board of Education has felt that the whole of his Bill depends upon it. But if you are to maintain respect for this House of Commons—and nobody is more anxious than that should be so than the Prime Minister—surely we must be allowed to vote on an issue of that kind without being told that by so doing we are endangering the war effort.

Sir Malcolm Robertson: Does not my hon. Friend, who has a great knowledge of foreign affairs, think that an adverse vote against the Government on this matter may very profoundly affect the attitude and dealings of Allied nations towards us now?

Mr. Bartlett: I am so bewildered to find my right hon. Friend, whose knowledge of international affairs is so great, paying a tribute to my humble knowledge of

foreign affairs that I do not quite know what to reply. But I would express my regret that the Foreign Secretary referred to the German wireless. Surely there is no need to drag that in. Every time the Prime Minister has expressed the views of this country, in the biting phrases in which he can so well express them, the German wireless has had a grand time. We need not descend to that. If there were a contrary vote in the House of Commons on our next Sitting Day the German wireless and the whole world would look upon it as a serious business indeed, and it is just because we know perfectly well that there will not be a hostile vote that I speak now. A great many Members, in order not to give the world the satisfaction of thinking that this country is losing its determination to win the war, will vote for the Government or abstain from voting. It is because of that that some of us are protesting against this particular way of putting us in this difficulty. There are those who believe sincerely that this is the time to get rid of the discrepancy of unequal pay for equal work by both sexes, but, personally, I shall not vote against the Government, in order not to give satisfaction to the enemy. I do, however, protest against this procedure.

Mrs. Tate: My hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), who made such an eloquent speech just now, said that we voted yesterday on the narrow issue of equal pay for equal work. May I remind the House that the issue on which we voted was a very much narrower issue? It was the issue of equal pay for women teachers, which is a very much narrower issue. With the exception of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), who said that he had no idea that this question was going to arise yesterday, the vast majority of the Members of the House knew perfectly well that the particular Clause of the Education Bill to which there was the Amendment which led to the vote, would be debated. On the Order Paper of the House of Commons, at the present time, there is a Motion on the much larger issue of equal pay for men and women in the Civil Service. This Motion is supported by some 150 Members, not mainly of the Opposition benches, who are known to be in favour of equal pay for equal work. It must, therefore, have been abundantly


clear to the Government what the feeling of the Committee was on the Amendment which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mrs. Cazalet Keir) and what attitude the Committee were likely to take on that issue.
My hon. Friends and I, who have, consistently, for many years, worked and spoken in favour of equal pay for equal work would regard nothing as being more tragic than that that very minor issue, compared to the tremendous issues which face this country at the present time, should ever have come to be debated not only as a matter of confidence in the Government with regard to the conduct of the war but as a matter of general confidence in the Government. There is nothing we should more sincerely deplore. But I think the Government have been hardly fair with the House, in view of the support they must have known existed on this question, in not making it known yesterday that this was a major issue. I think it would have been justifiable, when the Amendment was being debated, if the Government had told—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. Lady is not entitled to rehash yesterday's proceedings; it is not in Order to go into details.

Mrs. Tate: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I would beg hon. Members to remember that there is still a Motion on the Order Paper with regard to equal pay in the Civil Service and it will make the position of many Members really farcical if we cannot debate subjects, and vote on questions on which we are known to be pledged, without that being considered to express a lack of confidence in the Government. I am second to none in my confidence in the Prime Minister and in my wish to give him every possible support at a time when all of us must be conscious that the burden on his shoulders is almost more than can be borne. I beg that the matter of equal pay may soon be discussed by a Royal Commission, outside the House altogether, and that we may, on our next Sitting Day, be given the opportunity of a straight Vote of Confidence in the Government, with the assurance that this question should be debated and considered outside the House and not be taken as a matter of confidence in the

Government, which it never was, and never will be, as the Government have made it appear.

Mr. Tinker: I am glad that the Prime Minister is present, because I want him to know the feelings of the loyal Members of the House of Commons. I have stood by the Prime Minister through thick and thin because I believe he is the right man for the job. I have supported him on every occasion. Yesterday I voted for the Amendment. I thought that our job here on domestic matters, apart from the war effort, was to be allowed freely to express our feelings. I thought the two things would be separated and the Government would not be put into any difficulty at all. The Minister of Education fought very hard yesterday, but I gathered that it was a matter for the Committee to decide what they thought they ought to do. In previous discussions, if I remember rightly, he has said "I am subject to the will of the House of Commons," and I thought that was our function yesterday. If not, why should we ever go into Committee at all? I thought that we went into the Committee stage of a Bill for the purpose of freely expressing our opinions. If the Prime Minister had said, "If you carry this Measure it may be against the war effort," I would have examined it in that light. The Prime Minister has always stood as a great House of Commons man, but he takes up the attitude now that there is to be no free expression, and there is a threat of a Vote of Confidence. That will put us in an extremely difficult position.
I want the war to be won. I stand behind the Prime Minister, yet I believe that the vote that I gave yesterday was a right one. What am I to do in the forthcoming Debate? Am I to sacrifice my principles? If the vote is regarded overseas as a big adverse vote against the war effort, where are we? I appeal to him as one of his admirers, if he wants a Vote of Confidence, to have it on a greater issue than this. Do not divide the House on what I claim is not a big point in regard to the war effort. As a back bench Member who wants to back him in the war effort, I make an honest and fervent appeal to him to reconsider the position and try to find some other way out of the difficulty. I am in a very difficult position as to what I should do. I cannot pledge


myself not to vote against the Prime Minister. If the question is driven to a vote I shall have to give serious consideration as to which way I shall vote.

Major Thorneycroft: It is a pleasure to follow the very moderate and persuasive speech to which we have just listened. I hope it may have carried that conviction to the Government which I feel it carried to the vast majority of Members on this side. I wish to be as moderate as the hon. Member was. This is not a moment for making debating speeches in any sense. Yesterday the Committee decided in favour of equal pay for men and women teachers. It was in no sense a party decision. It was initiated by the Tory Reform Committee, but there were other Conservatives who voted for it, and it was supported by hon. Members opposite. On the next Sitting Day I understand we are going to be asked to reverse that decision. Like the hon. Member, perhaps even more so as I seconded the Amendment, I shall be put in an embarrassing position. If I vote for the Government I may be made to look a little ridiculous. I do not think that is a very important thing at this time, and I would not let that weigh with me for an instant in such a matter as confidence in the Government. What I am concerned about is not that I may be made to look ridiculous but that the Government may make themselves look ridiculous if they carry this procedure much further. It seems to me that the difficult decision that we all have to take is not only to look after our own interests but how to save the Government themselves. They failed to obtain the presence of a large number of their supporters yesterday, and they failed to obtain a majority of those who were present, and now we have to consider what it is best to do.
There will be other Bills and there will be other Committee points, and if the Government are going to adopt the same attitude every time an Amendment is pressed they may on the first occasion, or even the second, get a Vote of Confidence, but each time they get it they will by their own action sap the confidence not only of the House of Commons but of the country. It is for these reasons that I make a most earnest appeal to my right hon. Friend to pay heed to what has been said by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) and

see whether there is not some way that he can find which will meet the wishes so clearly expressed from all quarters of the House and reconcile our support of the Government in their prosecution of the war and our desire to get on with social reform.

Mr. Price: I am very sorry that the Prime Minister should have taken this matter so much to heart that he sees fit to raise what I cannot help feeing is a grave constitutional issue. I quite agree that the Government of the day must have power to say they regard this or that matter as a Vote of Confidence and, if necessary, will dissolve Parliament and threaten a General Election. But it is impossible to say that, because this House has on this occasion voted against the Government, therefore there is no confidence in the Government. I often think that the power that Congress has in the United States can be and is abused. It is right that the Government should have more power over the Legislature here than the President has under the United States Constitution over Congress. There there is too great freedom for the legislature. Surely the Prime Minister is going to the other extreme. He is claiming for the Executive now to dissolve Parliament and go to the country—

The Prime Minister: I never said anything of the sort. I must make it absolutely clear that it does not rest with any Prime Minister to dissolve Parliament. The utmost he can do is to tender advice to the Crown.

Mr. Price: That, of course, is the law, but in actual fact the advice comes from the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: This is one of the exceptional occasions when the Prerogative of the Crown comes into play and where in doubtful circumstances the Crown would refer to other advisers. It has been done on several occasions. I must make it absolutely clear that it does not rest with the Government of the day. It would be most improper on my part to use any language which suggested that I have the power to make such a decision.

Mr. Price: I accept that statement of the Prime Minister. The main point of my argument is that the Prime Minister is derogating to the Executive power over the House of Commons which, if it is car-


ried on, will hamper and hamstring the future activities of this House in a way which even in war-time is very undesirable. Like other Members on both sides of the House, I say that the Prime Minister has no right to associate with the conduct of the war a domestic issue of this kind, and a post-war issue, too. I can understand, when 18 months ago a Motion was moved in the House after the disaster in Libya to the effect that the House had no confidence in the central direction of the war, that that was a Vote of No Confidence and was intended to be. That was a serious issue and the Prime Minister was right to regard it as such. He was right also to regard his own position as impossible if it had been carried or if a large vote had been given in its favour. That is one thing. The present issue is another. I presume that the Prime Minister knows, and the Government should know, that on this issue there is a large body of opinion in the country which feels that the time has come when the economic status of women should be equal to that of men. just as the last war brought about equal political rights for men and women, so it has required this war to do the same in the economic field. Even if we had some indication from the President of the Board of Education that he was sympathetic and had recognised it in his speech yesterday, and if he had given us some hope that he would deal with it in some way or that it would be dealt with on a wider scale, this position would not have arisen. Unfortunately, his speech was a stonewalling speech.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member cannot go into yesterday's proceedings in detail.

Mr. Price: If we had had an indication from the Government that they were prepared to deal with this matter this crisis would not have arisen. I come to the further constitutional issue, whether it is worth while the House continuing to attend the proceedings in Committee and move Amendments. If on every occasion we are to be treated in this way it would not be worth while. I beg the Prime Minister to reconsider the position and, at least on future occasions, to make it possible for this House to function on domestic issues even in war-time.

Mr. Hammersley: I happen to be a member of the Tory Re-

form Committee, and I was one of those who put my name down to the Amendment which caused this trouble. I listened to the Debate yesterday. I am in favour of equal pay for men and women teachers provided they are doing the same job. The Minister made it clear that that issue was immediately linked up with equal pay for men and women in the Civil Service and that that would raise the general question of equal pay to men and women throughout industry. It was made abundantly clear, without a possible sign of any mistake, that these matters were also linked up with the wide issue of family allowances. The President warned the Committee that these matters could not and ought not to have been introduced as a side wind in an Education Bill. Although I was in favour of the Amendment, because of that and realising the greater duties which lay upon Members of Parliament, I thought with and voted for the Government.

Mr. Bowles: On a point of Order. Hon. Members from time to time have been ruled out of Order because they referred to the Debate yesterday or the votes they had given. Will your width of Ruling in this matter, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, prevail in the coming Debate? If so, there is no need to carry on this Debate at all.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am in a double position, and it is not possible for me today, in my present capacity, to indicate what my view may be on another day in another capacity.

Mr. Hammersley: I was endeavouring to indicate that, although individuals might be in favour of equal pay for men and women teachers, they have also in these times a greater responsibility. I consider that that greater responsibility was clearly indicated and that Members cannot in these times conduct their responsibilities by keeping one eye on their women constituents. I am convinced that Members of Parliament have a greater responsibility than that, and must support the Government when they clearly lay down the issue as it was laid down yesterday. For that reason I did support and will support the Government.

Mr. Granville: Despite the speech of the Leader of the House, I want to make a special appeal to the Prime Minister, in the spirit in which an appeal


was made by the hon. Member for Sea-ham (Mr. Shinwell), to reconsider the whole question before the coming Debate. This Debate to-day has been something of a curtain raiser or a prelude to what is to be a Vote of Confidence in the coming Debate. I tried at Question time to ascertain whether we should in fact be in Order in discussing education or a Vote of Confidence in the Government. I believe that the Ruling which is likely to be given will mean that our constituents, who are already sending us telegrams, will think that the Debate will involve confidence in the general conduct of the war and in the Government, when in fact we shall be unable to discuss it. Surely between now and the time of the Debate there will be an opportunity for the Prime Minister to reconsider the whole matter in the light of to-day's Debate.

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]

Mr. Granville: Surely there will be time for the Prime Minister to discuss this matter in the light of this Debate. We are indebted to the Prime Minister that he should, despite his tremendous responsibilities, have been able to spare the time to come to the House of Commons to-day to make this contact with ordinary back benchers, who stand up over and over again and unfortunately on many occasions fail to get called.
If the Prime Minister wants to have a Vote of Confidence which will deal with Doctor Goebbels, as was indicated by the Leader of the House, he can change the Business of the House on the next Sitting Day. If he will put a Motion of Confidence on the Paper, we can discuss it and vote upon it, and the Prime Minister knows that he will get a far greater and much more satisfactory vote that way than he will get upon the narrow issue which is going to be put to us. We are grateful to him for coming here to-day and showing that he is in every way a House of Commons man, and, as he himself says, a servant of the House. I appeal to him and his colleagues of the War Cabinet who are sitting beside him to dis-

cuss the matter again in the Cabinet and to come here ready to give us an opportunitiy of voting on a straight Motion of Confidence in the Government. Alternatively, let him accept the suggestion which was made by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) and deal with the particular part of the problem in relation to the Minister of Education and then with the general principle of equal pay for equal work as between the sexes as applied to other spheres, which has been referred to by so many hon. Members. If the Prime Minister wants his Vote of Confidence and will put a Motion on the Order Paper he will get a far greater majority that way than he will on the narrow issue of education. There would be fewer abstentions and it would be understood clearly by the general public and abroad, which is what the Government really desire.

Sir Malcolm Robertson: With all deference to a great deal that has been said to-day, and with special reference to the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down—with a great part of whose speech I am in most cordial agreement—I venture to ask the House to remember the effect of yesterday's vote on the outside world. We are accustomed to our own democratic procedure, but other nations do not know so much about it. Our Allies, and notably the United States, have been informed that there was a vote against the Government yesterday. We know in this country what that actually meant, in point of fact, but other nations do not, and I think therefore that the Prime Minister and the Government are not only right. but have a bounden duty to reassure our Allies on this subject by taking the earliest opportunity to obtain a Vote of Confidence which the world will understand. That is the real point at issue.
It is a question, with all respect to the House, of that knowledge and understanding of the psychology of foreign peoples, which is not the same as our own. We here know, I repeat, what the procedure is in this House, and exactly what it means. Other nations do not. But the Government must take the earliest opportunity to rectify the vote of yesterday and make it quite clear to the nations of the world that we are strongly behind the Prime Minister and his Government. I


hope very much that the House will realise the position.

Mr. George Griffiths: It is very seldom that I speak, shall I say, face to face with the Prime Minister, and I want to say that when he made his statement to-day I felt very disappointed. I, with the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) have backed the right hon. Gentleman through thick and thin. We have not always had smooth sailing in Lie mining areas. I remember that when we had the last coal Debate I received a vote of condemnation from my branch, because we did not go for the Prime Minister and did not put our case. I went and met them, 2,500 of them. I put the case for the Prime Minister, and said that he had spoken very well for us, as against some of the speakers behind him. Some of our chaps hardly believed what I said. I want to say to the Prime Minister that we have stood behind him in this way, all the time. I would like to say this also. I listened very attentively on Sunday night to what the Prime Minister said about domestic politics. I hung on to every word. He mentioned the Education Bill now before the House, but I did not hear him say that if there was any Amendment carried in opposition to the Government, they would take it as a vote of no confidence in the Government. If we are to have Bills on the Floor of the House of Commons in Committee, and we can only discuss Amendments and cannot take them into the Division Lobby, I consider that the best thing is to pass the Education Bill as it is at once, and get it on the Statute Book.

The Prime Minister: The Government have accepted, I am told, 50 or 60 Amendments. The whole Bill is being shaped as it goes along. The reason that this difficulty arose was that something much bigger and extraneous was tacked on. That s the answer to my hon. Friend, whom I respect so much.

Mr. Griffiths: I will leave that there. But what are we going to do with the National Health Measure when that comes forward? We shall have to have discussions on the National Health Service. I may be, shall I say dull, but if this thing goes out to the country the country will say, "It does not matter about you going to the House of Commons, because if you do not stand in with the Government,

then the Prime Minister and the Government will refuse to accept your decision." I am putting it as the rank and file of the people will put it to me next Saturday night at my executive. I feel very sore about this matter. I hope that if the Committee feel that an Amendment is necessary and the Government are not prepared to accept it, the Government will still stand behind the Committee if that Amendment is carried.

Mr. Wedderburn: My right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Sir M. Robertson) is a little concerned about the effects of this vote in America. I hope that the American public will, in time, learn to receive news of Government reverses here with as little dismay as we have learned to receive news of Government reverses in Congress, which have been fairly frequent in recent years. The British Government have been more fortunate than the Government of President Roosevelt, and I hope that they will continue to be so. I got up not to advert to the merits of equal pay, but to remind the House of what happened when the Government were last defeated on this same subject. At the beginning of this present Parliament the Government were defeated on this question of equal pay.
My right hon. Friend who is now Minister of Town and Country Planning was in charge for the Government, but, in spite of his eloquence, the Government were defeated. They decided that they must have a Vote of Confidence. They had a Vote of Confidence on a rather wider issue. They moved that the House should resolve itself into Committee of Supply, and it was ruled that on the Motion it would be in Order to discuss not only the question of equal pay for equal work, but the whole policy of the Government, including foreign affairs. That is what, in fact, happened. There was a mixed Debate partly on equal pay for equal work and partly on foreign affairs, in which my right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister took part. He said, on the merits of equal pay for equal work:
I do not think that the supporters of the principle of equal pay for equal work have any reason to be at all downhearted at what has occurred. As a matter of fact, they have done very well. They have had a marked success and I have little doubt that their essay on the next occasion will be advanced with every favourable prospect.


That was eight years ago. The division list at that time makes rather interesting reading. My right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for India had voted against the Government; so did my hon. Friend who is Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, with a large number of other Parliamentary Secretaries, of whom I have now lost count. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister went on to criticise Mr. Baldwin for his lack of resilience in adapting himself to this situation. He compared him with Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, whom he described as the "boneless wonder." He said:
I must say that I am rather doubtful whether my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is quite as adept in dealing with these situations"—

that is, the defeat of the Government—
as his predecessor in the office which he holds. A complete mastery of these acrobatic feats requires one to be broken in to them very early and to have continued practice. No one, therefore, need at all grudge the Leader of the Opposition if he sings peans of triumph and utters all the war-whoops that are appropriate to such a festive occasion."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 6th April, 1936; cols. 2478–9, Vol. 310.]
My right hon. Friend devoted the rest of his speech that day not to equal pay but to foreign affairs. It was a speech in which his support of the Government was not entirely unqualified, but he did vote for them in the Division Lobby.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.